A requiem for CAPITALISM

Capitalism, a model that started as an experimentation to fund foreign expeditions under the Dutch East Indies Company. A model that was sketchy and awkward, now has become the model of predilection through the world. It conquered the last bastions of so called "Communism" and through the impulsion of right-wing neo-liberal ideology in this 2nd decade of the 2nd millionaire it implements itself not only as a concept of trade or a "façon" of commerce but more so as a "way of life". It interlinks itself with so called notions of freedom and of liberty, even of "social evolution".
It is very important nowadays to try to understand the origins of this ideological capitalism, to understand how did capitalism root itself so deeply in our common culture, in our common perception of our world and of its surroundings.
Today capitalism is in many ways link as a synonym to the notions of liberty, of freedom, it nourishes itself off the myths of the "self made man" and the tales of "rags to riches". But was capitalism always seen in such a manner? Was capitalism always the banner carrier of liberty, and all of these notions born of the enlightenment?
No is the answer and we don't have to recollect to far in the past to understand that capitalism wasn't always intermingled with this notions. The fact is that the rise of capitalism, "industrial capitalism" during the 19ht century in the heart of Europe (England, the German States, France and the lower countries) were in fact earthquakes metaphorically speaking creating anew social tensions, creating greater wealth without any doubt, but creating such disparities in this new creation of wealth, that it created two new social classes. One empowered by their investment and the other empowered by their hands (manual work), it goes without saying that in the power struggle of class relations one was stronger then the other. And so was born the bourgeoisie and the working class. The only difference between the relationship between the nobility and the non-royal subjects (the third estate) was that the bourgeoisie was had thicker rows then the nobility and that the working class were subjected to a sort of unprecedented impoverishment. It was was a new kind of impoverishment in the sense that the new working class was completely subject to the new ruling classes. It may seem a simple explanation but one the greatest differences between the so called peasants of the feudal age and the "labourers" of the industrial age was the absence of land to cultivate, in fact they were masters of nothing. The peasants at the time were in subjects of their feudal lord, but the had land and could feed off the land in tranquility by paying off the lords taxes. On the other hand the new working class were brought from the countryside into the cities lived to raggedy, shabby shantytowns on the outskirts. They couldn't produce their food, and so couldn't produce a living, their independence became a complete dependence to the newly born capitalistic system. And the backlash against the newly born system would be called first socialism, and later on communism. So the question is now to be asked: so if capitalism wasn't at the start linked to freedom and liberty quite on the contrary, then why and how did it link itself to such causes? And was this link justifiable?
Well to understand the creation of this link between capitalism and such values such as freedom and liberty, human rights and social evolution, we have to understand the ideological fight that fallowed the second world war. At the end of the second world war a great tension between two different economic models was born. The first called communism was born as a backlash against the capitalistic society, its masterminds Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed in a society of pure equality "form each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". Engels and Marx regarded the capitalistic society as the means of domination of the upper-classes that behold the means of production and so subdued the working class into a semi-slave state. The working class needed to unite and conquer equality with their bare hands. The problem that would play out later on was that the need of a "revolutionary elite" in the first steps of the revolution, in fact in practice always turned out to be the empowerment of a new elite, the communist party. So the two differing ideologies would struggle for world dominance throughout the later-half of the 20th century. Above all the "Cold War" was an ideological war, it was a war to conquer the "hearts and minds" of the world, it was a war of ideas, a war of propaganda. And it was during the Cold War that capitalism through the pens of it's "mad men" would link itself with the greater cause of liberty and freedom, values that were most often assimilated to democracy (democracy in its radical sense the rule of the people, the power that emanates from the people). But capitalism and democracy have never been the same, and very small are the similarities between the two models one political and the other economic. It's as if today capitalism has become the extension of democracy and visa versa.
But crisis such as the 2008 market crash, a bitter reminder of 1928, in a sense a bitter reminder of the real values of capitalism. Unlike democracy, capitalism is not a system in which each and everyone has a say, quite on the contrary, capitalism is system that alike communism creates an elite that controls piratically everything, and when you look at it today as you go through your bills trying to make some sense out of it all a small tiny minority doesn't need to through their bills, hey they got 100million dollar bonuses. And yet something seems out of touch here, because just 3 years ago these same guys had brought the world economy to it's knees and prayed for forgiveness and asked for bailouts. And it was, but three years down the line unemployment is still rising, no regulation has affected the life of that small minority, and the gap between those at the top of this capitalistic system and those at the bottom gets wider and wider by the day.
Now I'm not against capitalism completely as a system, I'm against radical and insane capitalism that has imposed yet another "Gilded Age" on us. What we have learned with the revolutions that have turned and spiralled the world forever changing it is that system are not eternal, that the road to real sustainable democracy is a long one but that unlike Francis Fukuyama said history is far form being over. So capitalism as we know has its days numbered a new sort of economic model with be born form its ashes (for the better or  for the worst) because a system that puts entire nations up against the wall, creates millions of disaffected citizens, and destroys our planet and our democratic regimes has no where to go but to the grave.
One last thing : CAPITALISTIC VALUES ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC/ DEMOCRACY IS NOT CAPITALISM/ CAPITALISM CAN BE CHANGED.   

Sky                                           

An Open Letter to Israel and Palestine

Dear Israelis, Dear Palestinians.

Since 1947, the date of the creation of the state of Israel and the start of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, much has been said, many conferences and "peace deals" have been set up or put into writing, but as this generation looks back through the past it recollected with certitude that not much has changed.
As of today we are mingled in a very noxious situation, always been a rock and a hard place, and so there isn't much room form mutual understanding or cooperation. As of today it seems that in such a dear, important moment, an opportune moment unlike any other that can not go to waste. Winds and breezes of change whistle throughout the the corridors of power of the Middle East, forever changing the "geopolitics" of the region, forever changing the people's conception of power and of democracy, reinstating hope and the belief that common hands can change "destiny".
And yet shades of grey are tainting the bright whiteness of newly found freedom. One biggest grey spot on the awesome frame. That being the quagmire of the Isreali/Palestinian conflict.
These last day have proven to the world and the international community that even if the "times are a changing" in the Middle East in some aspects, on some topics the "road-blocks" are so imposing that little or in this  case nothing is changing. Mr. Netanyahu visit to Washington was a failure in every sens of the term, first of diplomatically he did not (did he even try is the question) to warm up the bilateral relations between his administration and Mr. Obama's, but he didn't really need to make an effort because of the importance of the Israeli lobby. Second of all he proved to be once again part of an almost extinct "race" of political leaders, the commonly called old guard, that still believes that nothing is shifting in the Middle East, that was brought up with the idea that the Arabs and Arab nations we're "unfit" for democracy, and he proved that Israel was certainly unfit for peace.
Netanyahu said during his speech before Congress, that he remembered the time when he and Jon Biden we're the "new boys in town", well as this generation recollects on his past and the present, one thing is evident, the Israeli "disengagement" in the common welfare of their neighbours is one of the roots of evil. And during this "Arab spring" it is just astonishing how many evil roots have been uprooted.
The message I want to try with  my mere words to my Israeli and Palestinian friends, to those moderates who believe that over terror, blood, fear and tears, compassion and cooperation is stronger. Is that the message that started as a writing on the wall, became a whisper and then form a flame grew an uncontrollable blaze, and that it's time to ignite the flair of revolt in Israel and in Palestine.
First of all one must recognize that the aspirations of the Palestinian people for statehood, to build a legitimate and internationally recognized "home" are as important as those as the (Post second world war) Jewish claim for Israel. We must recognize that the context of the building/independence of the state of Israel legitimate and that the crimes of WWII will never be buried in the dust of time, but that this context, this past experience does not give the Israelis the right to act in the way they do with the Palestinians people. It must be known that without of the recognition of the righteous cause of the state of Israel by the Palestinian political body and by all of the Palestinian actors no peace can be found. As much it is a right for the Palestinians to live in peace within their home land, so too is it the right for Israeli families to live without fear within their households and neighbourhoods. Terrorist organizations should cease to exist and each actor should renounce violence. And most important of all in my view the "colonization" of the West Bank should come to an end immediately.
But the greatest problem is that these are just words, words can surely create actions and engender change but for change to really occur men must give life to the writings. The future of the Middle East as we have seen isn't in the hands of dictators, or international organizations, it isn't in hands of Washington or of Tel Aviv or of Ramallah, and certainly not in the hands of extremists that hijacked the two actors of the conflict for too long.
It's in the hands of the peoples of Israel and of Palestine, as it is in the hands of the Egyptians, the Tunisians, the Syrians, the Yemenis and of the Spanish.
Sky                                     

Your Moment of Politcal Zen... brought to you by Red&Sky

How Jon Stewart owns Bill O'Reilly on his own show enjoy...

Neo-Liberalism and the demise of Democracy. (Part One)

1978,1979 and 1980. These years will forever be recorded as a turning point in world history, even more profoundly in human societies and in our perception of democracy. These three dates are linked without any doubt with the "defacto" leading, world dominant ideology, that we call Neoliberalism. In 1978 around 1 year and a half after the death of the grand leader Mao Zedong, a new elite of reformers took power in Beijing. At their head a man called Deng Xiaoping, a man that had always been at odds with the economic ideal of Maoism. His repugnance of the ideal of an industrial superpower that for basis an agrarian society originated with his deception of the "Great Leap Forward" for him this great leap was more so a great leap backwards. And so after the death of ideological father of the Chinese revolution, the revolution would be betrayed by one of it's own. Deng Xiaoping started the great economic reforms that would lead to the installation of a "capitalistic statism", in practice it meant the opening of certain sectors of the economy to private capital, and private enterprise in the so-called Special Economic Zones (SEZs) this was the first step towards the global economic power that China beholds today. But Xiaoping economic reforms did not change much in political or social terms, the fact is that the Xiaoping reforms were the birth of the Neoliberal tendency in China and the real implementation of Neoliberal policies in one country or was it?
In 1979, the United States under Jimmy Carter was on the brink of oblivion, at least that's the perception that the American public had of the denouement of the then being current world affairs. First of all Communism seemed on the rise throughout the world specially in Africa with the newly independent states of Angola and Mozambique. The Soviet army was on the offensive in Afghanistan and the debacle of Vietnam wasn't so far away form American minds. In economic terms the stagnation crisis had undermined the capitalistic model and so in a rush to save American two men would appear. First of that had for objective to save the economy, his name was Paul Volcker he become the boss of the Fed in 1979 with a mandate to curb the power of the almighty American trade unions and to make the inflationary and stagnation crisis history. In 1980 Reagan would join his side after being elected president of the United States of America on a platform of "American Renaissance". In Europe the "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher was elected on basically the same agenda. And so the birth of the "new brave world" occurred, little did they know back then that this Neoliberal revolution would forever change the face of the globe. The question that must be asked at some point is the fallowing, certainly the Neoliberal doctrine did help the United States gain hegemony and overthrow the decadent Soviet Union but at what cost? How could a doctrine that was said to be "umbilically" linked with freedom and liberty instate so many dictatorships? Today as the liberalization of the world continues little by little and more and more so, so does the demise of Democracy.

The Chilean prophecy. 

Salvador Allende

The ideological birth of Neoliberalism can be traced back in time to the 1930's and even before, but the object of study here is not Neoliberalism as an idea, instead Neoliberalism as a political actor, and the Neoliberal political actor first took stage on the 11th of September 1973 in the Southern American country of Chili. Neoliberalism first became a political arm during the period form Salvador Allende's election in 1970 to the 11th of September of 1973 the date of the Pinochet coup that would be the start of long bloody, horrid, black page of global history. Salvador Allende a figure very much forgotten in these days and times, was the ancestor of the actual left-winged leaders of Latin America. Salvador Allende implemented what he called the Chilean path to socialism lifting a very important percentage of Chileans out of extreme poverty, through social reforms, nationalizations and public works, his administration reduced unemployment and inequality in the country and prepped-up Chili's heath care and public education, But his most controversial policy was the decision to size land form the rich landowning families that were until Allende's ascension the holders of all the economic and so for political power of the nation. After this decision a multiplication of strikes and the mounting fear of  American in losing their hegemony in the region (the birth of another Cuba) would final terminate Allende's regime through a CIA mounted coup that would bring a military junta to power under the effigy of Augusto Pinochet. 

Augusto Pinochet

 With the arrival of the Junta the Chicago-boys and the American hegemony had the opportunity under this puppet regime to modify the socio-economic structure of Chili to it's guise. As Naomi Klein explains in her masterpiece The Shock Doctrine, through the shock of military oppression Pinochet's junta would liberalize completely the entire Chilean society.  So through the economic policy implanted in Chili by the economic reform plan called the brick. Chili's economic growth would soar, the only problem was that this "economic miracle" (expression used by Milton Friedman) happened in one of the worst dictatorships in world and even probably in world history. The question that immediately comes to one's mind is, how could an ideology that professed that great liberalization economic would automatically engender greater political freedom accept it's practice under a dictatorship?  And how about if Neoliberalism was not indistinguishable form democratic freedoms but instead to the commonly "vehiculated" idea, how about if Neoliberalism need as a basis for it's expanse a dictatorial/corporatist state?

Operation Condor and the accession of Neoliberalism in Latin America.

As in Chili's case Neoliberalism just could make itself a space in the political spectrum, parties that employed their platform of rapid economic liberalization were very unpopular among the peoples of the Latin American states, so Neoliberalism had to overpass the democratic institutions to really take root, and that's where Operation Condor comes into action.
Operation Condor, was the sort of war on terror of the time. It was an operation that had for objective to join all the intelligence services ( more secret policies) of the Latin American dictatorships. The Operation Condor was probably one the most brutal political repression campaigns in modern history. It spanned throughout an entire continent. Under it's banner it encompassed various anti-subversive "tactics" (all of them out of the fascist playbook) such as the "Dirty War" in Argentina, the political repression in Brazil and the death camps under Pinochet in Chili. But then again there is shocking correlation to make between these forms of political repression and the implementation by these authoritarian governments of Neoliberal policies. Under the banner of "containing communism" the United States aided extremist right-wing military groups to gain power and to maintain it through techniques of repression exported through the canals of the School of the Americas, and what was asked in exchange economic liberalization, so that Latin America would be transformed into "economic satellites" of the great American industrial machine. But as was seen in Chili before and throughout Latin America after the Neoliberal economic policies were not accepted by the population, because Neoliberalism wasn't "democratic". Neoliberalism could not withstand "democratization" the first necessary element to instill Neoliberal policies is "dictatorial playgrounds". On that basis the Neoliberal economic policy killed democracy in Latin America for almost two decades, but after the Latin American "triumph" the dark mantle of Neoliberalism would spread through the world and transform itself to adapt in hostile climates.

Gaz, Oil and the "liberalization" of Iran and the Arab world.           

British Petroleum or Anglo-Persian Oil Company

The tale starts back in 1951, a predominant nationalist with socialist penchants is appointed prime minister in Iran. Dr. Mosaddegh then undertakes the important reform of nationalizing the very profitable Iranian petrol industry, that at the time being was in the hands of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (the Iranian BP affiliate of the time), in other words an important pillar of the British economy. For Mosaddegh the plan was very plain and simple, with the revenue generated by the new nationalized petroleum industry he would soar his fellow countrymen out of the grips of poverty. But for the British the lose of such an important economic asset was mere folly and for the C.I.A. and the American government of the newly elected Eisenhower Dr, Mosaddegh socialist principals were flirting with communism in a way that made the United States uneasy. The only option now was a tactic that would become very well know in the future "Regime Change". So the tale of Dr. Mosaddegh and of his "nationalistic" adventure comes to an abrupt end in 1953. With unconditional tactic/strategic aide of the American and British secret services the conservative wing of the army mounted a coup and put on the thrown a new Shah.             
Another turning point in the "liberalization" of the middle east was the ascension of Anwar Sadat to the title of Rais in 1970. After Gamal Nasser's death in 1970, Anwar Sadat a high ranking military general as was Nasser took control of Egypt. First he was view as merely a puppet of the "Nasserist" elite, but through the "Corrective Revolution" Sadat eliminated the entire "Nasserist" vision form the circles of power. He then pursued the economic policy of "liberalization" something that was completely contradictory with Nasser's vision of "Egypt's self-determination".
And then came the period of the 1990's and the arrival of military junta's to power in all of the middle east implementing Neoliberal agenda's, as in Algeria that completely "liberalized" it's gaz and oil industry, the same in Tunisia, the "Tunisian Miracle" under the rule of Ben Ali, and in Libya with reconstruction of diplomatic relationships with country. Throughout the Arab world form Saudi Arabia to the United Arab Emirates, from Bahrain to Yemen, the United States through the C.I.A. and the so-called war against "the evil empire" that represented communism financed authoritarian regimes/ petro-kings and in return the only thing they asked for was the implementation of Neoliberal policies and the "liberalization" of their economies so that American enterprises could operate in total freedom. But what did this lead to? What did this mean for democracy? 
Without any doubt the direct consequences of the Neoliberal policies instilled by the various "puppet" regimes of the United States was grand popular discontentment, in lead to "Bread-Riots" in Egypt, a civil war in Yemen between "Socialist" and autocratic fractions, but the major shift it lead to without any doubt was the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It was a new kind of revolution, a one that did not lean to the west or to the east but stood on it's feet (at least at the beginning, afterwards it turned into one of the most repressive regimes in the world) and fought violently against the Neoliberal policies that were implemented by the Shah and his regime. It was more anti-capitalistic, then anti-occidental or anti-American, and detested the "western" main mise on the Iranian economy, it was the first anti-Neoliberal revolution. And it "breeded" a new sort of protestation Islamic radical terrorism. So we have seen how in the "3rd world" Neoliberalism destabilized and destroyed the democratic process, how it cut the grassroots of democratic aspirations, doing so under the theory that greater economic liberty would defacto engender greater political liberty a more democratic form of governance. But could Neoliberalism infiltrate western democracies and turn them into "facade democracies"? into D.O.I.N.'s (Democracies Only In Name)? Create the same oligarchic regimes that existed in the third world but dressed with the robes of democracy?

Sky                      

Your Moment of Politcal Zen... brought to you by Red&Sky

The Reformist Revolution: the redesigning of the Canadian political landscape that lead to Harper's Majority

How did Haper get here?

Monday morning the whole of Canada awoke to the news of the new Harper majority with 167 seats in parliament out of 308 total seats it appeared to be really a strong conservative mandate that would be instated in Ottawa. It's been a long trend since 2006 and the first Harper government, since then Canada, Canadian values have metamorphosed into something unrecognizable, unthinkable for Canadians merely 5 years back. But what really does this Harper majority mean for Canada? What does this election of 167 MPs teach us about the changing nature of Canadian politics?

The logo of the Reform Party of Canada

First of all without any doubt a "polarization" of politics is coming into effect in the Canadian political landscape, what Canadians have to remember is that the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of the Right Hon. Harper changed radically. The Conservative Party of Canada today isn't at all the Progressive Conservatives that existed before. That "race" of politicians and that political conception of Canada seems to be extinct at least inside the new Conservative Party of Canada. Throughout the political history of Canada the Tories as we call them where the party of fellows like John Diefenbaker and John A. Macdonald, they had very different perception of what Canada's place should be. Today it's seems like we are assisting to an "Americanization" of Canadian politics through the policies implemented by the consecutive Harper administrations, through the loosening-up of gun registry and soon enough the move by the evangelistic wing of the new Harper majority to push for more regulation of abortion and so on. Since the ascension of Harper to PM and even before since his election as leader of the new Conservative Party the old Canadian "social-democratic" ideals, the heritage of Tommy Douglas and Pierre Elliot Trudeau have been seen as the "enemy'. In fact Harper has a hit-list and as we have seen throughout his previous mandates he will not stop until the Canadian social state is on it's knees. But how did things get so tangled-up how did Canada the idyllic north started becoming little by little the 51st State?

Preston Manning the influential leader of 

the Reform Party

To understand really this metamorphose of Canadian politics we have to go some what back in time, to the 1990's Canada was hit but a very severe economic crisis, Mulroney at the head of the Progressive Conservatives lead a series of economic reforms that would help put Canada back on track. During this period of economic stagnation, voices on the right would rise up to ask for reform. The link between the crisis of the 1990's and the birth of a new bread of right-leaning groups in Canada is doubtless. The Reform Party of Canada was without any doubt the spearhead of this right-wing "renaissance". Under the leadership of  Preston Manning they would destroy literally the Progressive Conservatives, robbing them of the Prairie and their western Canadian basis. In the 1993 election the Progressive Conservatives would drop to an unknown bottomless bottom. What was the appeal of the Reform Party? It was a populist movement that had for source of it's political capital the discontent of the ordinary folk against rising taxation. But the main factor driving this "Reform" movement to Ottawa was based on a western prairie movement (that then after extended to British Colombia) calling for a stronger representation of the west in Canadian politics. It called for lesser rights for the gay, lesbian and transexual communities, to give the first nations lesser importance, and to rebuke the idea of Quebec's autonomy. It was an evangelistic, populist, enraged movement against federal power (expect in the case of Quebec of course).  With it's electoral victories in 1993 and 1997  the "Reform" party forever divided Canadian politics. The Reform Party created the fault lines on which now the Conservative Party has gained a majority. Now the next question resides in the death of the Reform Party, the birth of the Canadian Alliance and all that mashed-up into gumbo gave us the new "Conservative Canada".

Canadian federal election of 1997 (In Green the Provinces that voted Reform)

Even with the impressive electoral performances in 1993 and 1997 that was the death sentence of the Progressive Conservatives, the Reform Party just couldn't get elected into governing. Yes back then Canada still was a "Liberal Nation" and the Canadians during that time input their trust in Chretien's Liberal Party with three majority governments (from the 1993 federal election through the 1997 election and finally with the 2000 election). So the option was rather simple it was the merger of the various political groups of the right in one strong Conservative Party. But before that happened the Canadian Alliance emerged replacing the Reform Party and tried harder and harder to "break the ice" in the eastern provinces of Ontario and of Quebec, without success. Like today with the NDP and the Liberal splintering up the vote and impeding the Canadian left a real chance to govern, back in the day it was the same old ball game the Progressive Conservatives won seats in Ontario and Quebec and the Canadian Alliance would take seats in the prairie provinces. And so was born the Unite the Right movement and through it's impulsion finally the two united to create the actual Conservative Party of Canada. This being the union wasn't an easy thing the Progressive Conservative electors were radically opposed to the idea of the merge, they preferred to vote Liberal then to vote for a Canadian Alliance candidate, and so when the union was finally formulated it seemed that it wouldn't last. And that's when the "Reformists" (a very iconoclastic bunch, made-up of tax haters/neo-liberals, social conservatives and western patriots) hijacked the conservative movement.

One of the consequences of the "Reformist Revolution" the 1995 Quebec referendum

I guess that if John Diefenbaker or MacDonald (maybe we should ask Mulroney) were they still alive, they would probably not recognize their party. Today the Conservative Party is not even the shadow of it's former self. We always look south of the border and  to the American political disarray to comfort ourselves. The problem is that we are heading down the same trend in little time, Ms. Sarah Palin could very well find a new home in Canada. The rapid ascension of Stephen Harper was only possible due to the grassroots movement that was already existent. The "Reformist Revolution" was the centrepiece of his political career, the front page story of the last two decades. The vision of Canada, of what Canada should be, the "Reformists" changed forever the Canadian political landscape, and that "change" has started to change Canadian society. The "Reformist" vision of a Conservative Canada in America's image has little by little has lingered into Canadian society, poverty is up on the rise, ever more perturbing is the rise of poverty among immigrant communities, they become more and more ghettoized shoved into a corner. The "Reformist Revolution" brought neo-liberalism and social conservatism into the mainstream of Canadian politics, the particular consequence of the appearance of these new ideologies in the Canadian political landscape was: the reduction of social programs, the liberalization of the Canadian market (that means through the efforts of Globalization a bigger share of the Canadian economy to American companies), the dismantlement of heath care and the reduction of funding for federal education. But one other flaw of the "Reformist Revolution" was the birth of a sort of Culture War inside Canadian politics, between the Canadian west that was the "stronghold" of this new born movement and Ontario and Quebec, specially Quebec. The Culture War would push Quebec into the hands of the sovereignist Bloc Quebec and put Quebec on the edge of the oblivion of independence during the referendum of 1995. The Conservative movement has played on this fault line of provincial division to assure their reign. The question that stands out is will the party of Diefenbaker (once champion of a Canadian conservatism), his ideological stance re-find it's place in Canadian politics?

Unite the Right campaign poster

The preexisting divisions between the basis of the now defunct Progressive Conservative Party, still hide under the sink of the actual Conservative Party, it's just a question of remembering those Red Tories that the political stance that Diefenbaker certainly deferred form the nowadays Canadian left, but that in the end the objective of a true north strong and free is not going to happen through the continuation of Harper's  rule. The "Diefenbaker ideology" is of course not a left-leaning ideology, but it has for base social-justice, the belief in meritocracy (opposed to capitalist oligarchy, the American model, that Harper tries to implement with so much zeal) and equal opportunities. This perception of Canada is completely opposed to the "Reformist" perception of the ideal Canadian society. In the end the Red Tories of Ontario and Quebec can find a home in the "grand" left of the political spectrum. A formation that would confederate the liberals, and the centre-left, the socialists and social-democrats on the left and to the centre the Red Tories. It's time to learn from the history of the "Reformist Revolution". Without any doubt the "Reformist Revolution" was the motor of the political surge that swept Canada and that today lead Harper to Ottawa at head of one of the greatest Conservative majorities in history. To save our Canada, the non-neoliberal nation, the home of Greenpeace, a nation of equal opportunities and a meritocracy based on equity and moral principals and not uncontrolled, wild capitalism, we have to fight the "Reformist Revolution" with a "Righteous Revolution" to reinstate the Canadian ideal.

Canada we stand on guard for thee.

Sky

Osama Bin Laden's Death or the unanswered questions

It was during the night of Sunday to Monday, it happened like a blast, when all hope was lost. The news would spin around the world like a forest fire in the drought months of the summer, it's spark and flare would reignite a feeling of unity and invincibility unseen in the home of Jefferson for years. And yet as Americans gathered throughout the streets of New York and Washington, in Times Square or on the lawns facing the White House, America would slip just a little more into denial.

Osama Bin Laden, was the most wanted terrorist, maybe even man in history. Without any doubt the images of 9/11 still hunt the United States today as a nation, it's heritage lead the United States into two "wrecking" wars that would forever undermine America's place at the table of nations. Two wars that would ruin the economy and send the deficit into soaringly high waters. Worst of all it would through the Bush presidency really emphasized the "culture war" predicted by Patrick Buchanan some years before. The truth is that as always in state of shock  (a state in which America was plunged into after 9/11 and to a certain extent sank into nowadays after the dead of Osama Bin Laden), the right, the most pertinent questions are not asked.

Osama Bin Laden was without any doubt the leader of Al-Qaeda. He was the rich heir of one of Saudi Arabia's most influential families which goes without saying had more then very close ties with the Bush family was one of the founders of an armed group of Islamic radicals. Thing many have forgotten is that during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980's Osama Bin Laden was supported in more then one way by the United States. And even during the civil war that would fill the vacuum left by the retreat of the Soviet forces after 1989 the United States continued to keep strong links with Osama's mujaheddin, bizarrely favoured by the United States instead of the Lion of Panjshir that a much more "open" view for the implementation of a democratic form of Islamic rule in Afghanistan. Thought the military aide allocated by the United States to help Al-Qaeda fight the "red" menace it also assured a future safe heaven for terrorism in Afghanistan.

With or without the intention of doing so, through the foreign policy implemented during the Reagan and Bush senior years the grassroots movement for global terror was created. That's the first undeniable fact Osama Bin Laden was America's own creation. America made him in 1979, by the year of 2001 he was able to mastermind the attacks of 9/11 and last Sunday year 2011 the creator took the creation's life.

Another unanswered question is the US/Saudi Arabia relationship, is this relationship really beneficial for the world? For the peoples of both countries? Well then again it seems that it isn't at all. First of all the great majority of the terrorists that attacked American soil on 9/11 were Saudis. Then again we are getting into the dark side of politics, the ugly side. The fact is that the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is much more then a common economic partnership or common enterprise. As of today American is the biggest investor in Saudi Arabia and today Saudi Arabia controls 2% of the American GDP a huge share for a country of Saudi Arabia's importance. So what? Some would say, I would give you that if it was between two modern democratic regimes but it isn't Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist Islamic regime built on a conservative interpretation of Islamic laws much like the vision that Osama Bin Laden had for Afghanistan. So American is hand and feet tied to a backwards Islamic regime? Yes and I say more what did the American or Saudi Arabian people gain in this relationship, terror.  Maybe Osama Bin Laden was just one of many consequences of this special relationship?

Another question that still surrounds us and now since the death of Osama Bin Laden involves us, is the real meaning of this war on terror, the links between the war on terror and the markets, the "capitalization" our political society, the concentration of power in the hands of some. Osama Bin Laden sleeps forever, but the legacy of his actions still prove the demise of our democracies and of our modern political systems. Two unanswered questions that emphasize this demise, the fact that this war on terror seems more like a mini series soap opera the main actors being the Bush and Bin Laden families and as sidekicks the Husseins, and the fact that this so called war on terror had for banner freedom and liberty over fear when in the end it was all about Halliburton and Carlyle Group.
Let me explain myself. First of all the Bin Laden and Bush families have been partners forever, the Bush family actually served as a satellite for the Bin Laden's investments in the United States. The Bin Ladens had so many interests in the United States that they partly resided in side America's borders. So to paint the portrait of Osama Bin Laden as fundamentalist, an Islamic radical with a sort of "dog/wolf" hate for the United States is not true. Let it be said that Osama Bin Laden actually stay in America on several occasions, what we know for sure is that he did in 1979 and went to Chicago and Los Angeles. How is it that right after the 9/11 attacks none, not even one of the 13 Bin Laden family members that were in the United States were questioned?  This is just proof that today politics is the affair of some and it's minuscule details (most of the times in democracy details are the most important) are unknown to the masses.
Second question here: was the War on Terror really a war of ideals? Throughout the length of this war ideals of freedom, liberty, fundamental democratic ideals were used to preform really undemocratic actions. The restriction of personal liberty in the United States through the Patriot Act, the censorship of the first amendment for reasons of "national security" but even more terrifying the opportunism of some through the war of Iraq and Afghanistan to enrich themselves. Dick Cheney before becoming the "worst" vice president in America's history was part of the renown "big oil" and armament giant Halliburton a company that experienced an increase of 284 in profits throughout the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan conflict of interests? No sir not at all. Shafiq Bin Laden (Osama's brother), Bush senior and junior and Donald Rumsfeld were all part of  Carlyle Group another group that made titanic profits during the wars through armaments too.

So "okeh", Osama Bin Laden is now gone, but the questions still stay unanswered and well I guess they will always stay so, because to my big disarray people find it more patriotic to go out and wave flags and chant USA USA USA!!! the problem is they don't even know what it stands for anymore.

Sky