There are many names
for the types of governments. These
government styles can be broken down into two main categories, top-down and
bottom-up. The top-down style of
governments are typically described as totalitarian, regardless if that
government is called a Dictatorship, the many forms of Communism, Fascism, or
National-Socialism. The bottom-up style
of governments are typically described as freedom based, regardless if that
government is called a Democracy, a Representative Republic, or a Parliament;
the premise of this political model is that the power comes from the people.
Of course there are countries
with mixed political models that have a greater or lesser leaning towards the
models of bottom-up or top-down. Prime examples
of countries that participate in this balancing act are: Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, and the UK. At this time, no arguments will be made
towards any correlation or causation in participation within the British Empire.
To paraphrase Pres.
Bill Clinton's comment from the 1990s - Government "should be safe, legal,
and rare.” This no longer is, if it ever
was, the case.
Managing on the other
hand is the act of perpetuating a process. In 2009, the Harvard Business Review published
Prof. Paul Krugman’s book “A Country Is Not a Company” where the professor lays
out that what it takes to run a country is not the same as what is needed to
run a company; how things seem to have changed in the quarter of a century
since. At the time of publishing his
book, Prof. Krugman wasn’t far off the mark because back in the day, the goals
of a political leader were not the goals of a CEO or a Chairman of the Board.
As the years moved
forward from 2009 some countries have come to look a lot like companies more
and more, to the point where Donald J. Trump has been arguably one of the most
effective US Presidents in the last four to five presidential terms; at least
from the perspective of the population at large. There are some who claim that Trump was a populist
President as if it is a bad thing.
Populism, according
to Google is “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people
who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” In the name of logic, this implies that those
who disparage populism are “in favor of ignoring the ordinary people who feel
that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.” Any political promise must be considered an opportunistic
act until it comes to fruition or not; the political question is not if the
players want power or not, the political question is what they do with it. Consider the current pool of political elites
and then decide which of them favour a top-down or bottom-up approach.
‘What is a Woman?’ is
the title of a 2022 movie in which the responses of some people who claim that
trans-women are women are documented. This
tactic towards causing confusion or misdirection on the meaning of the meaning
of words has recently been played again by Nancy
Pelosi at the Oxford Union in England where the proposition of
the motion was: This House Believes Populism is a Threat to Democracy.
The basic commentary Rep.
Pelosi (D-CA) puts forward is a basic rebranding of what Populism is, for Rep.
Pelosi the word populism is simply a synonym for “LIAR. The idea of ‘confession through projection’ is
the act of assuming that the actions of others are driven by the motives of the
assumer”; the lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
Besides being the de
facto world hegemonic leader, the US is also one of the best Petri-dishes
for political discourse. At this time it
is hard to decide if that country is a plutocratic state, a fascistic one or a
blending of the two. A plutocracy is a
state ruled by the rich, while fascism requires the co-operation of the media
and big business with the government; social media giants like Facebook,
Google, and the Twitter of old are considered part of the media as they too are
disseminators of curated information. The
use of the phrase ‘saving our democracy’ by some people seems to have made that
phrase the preverbal carpet under which all political dirt gets swept.
In 1793, French
revolutionary Robespierre said "Anyone who is afraid now is guilty, for
innocence never fears public surveillance." Maximillien Robespierre, according to a page
on Wikipedia, was 1.6 m (~5’3”) though it is not stipulated online if that was
before or after he lost his head via the guillotine in 1794. Robespierre’s words are still being used
today on the masses, yet the governments that echo the sentiment don’t standby
the principle being espoused; the proof being the presence of redactions on
documents requested that pertain to matters within said state; international matters
do require protection.
Returning to the core
argument, within the Jewish religion a rabbi is a scholar or teacher of Jewish
law, for Shiites an Imam is a man recognized as an authority on Islamic
theology and law, the term Minister for Christians comes from the Latin term
‘minister’ which translates to ‘servant’. Seeing as all systems are hierarchical this
would imply that a Prime Minister must be the First Servant, although this
translation appears to have lost any link in modern times, seemingly regardless
of what country the title is still in use.
As a Canadian
citizen, this author is still able to be critical of the Canadian government,
at least until Bill-63 comes into force, at which point Trudeau’s intended UBI scheme
will possibly be presented in the form of incarceration. The policies of Canada’s
First Servant have caused many a person within Canada quite a bit of
consternation, with the most basic matter being current or future cash-flow. ‘Cash is king’, is no longer just a slogan,
as it has become reality; many people have taken note of this when they get
their meals delivered (bad idea) or buy their groceries (good idea).
Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau is not leading Canada,
rather his just simply managing it, and this is just one of his flaws; most of
the others will be ignored for this argument.
For being an anti-carbon environmentalist, Trudeau does seem to enjoy
greasing the squeaky wheel towards ensuring that things just stay moving forward. For the sake of this article, it is going to
be assumed that PM Trudeau is on the right track, but the wrong train as there
seems to be too many squeaky wheels for him to grease and there are too many
dirty palms to help apply it. Trudeau’s
cunning plan seems to be one of nationalized appeasement.
The tactic of appeasement through mutual co-operation is
downstream from the mandate of the United Nations, regardless of the world of
hurt it caused, and is causing now. The
miscalculation made is that there can be equity for all; this is impossible
unless there are some at the top balancing the scales of supply, demand,
geography, culture, and reality in general.
The problem with
equity for all is that it is expensive for all; the only difference amongst the
all is the matter of proportionality.
- Examples
for consideration on acts made by this government: moneys lost via CERB
payments, moneys paid out for the Arrive-Can app, moneys paid out not
finding indigenous mass graves, moneys spent or not collected in the name
of a unproven man-made climate emergency, and moneys sent sending
Ukrainian citizens into the meat grinder of a proxy war.
- Examples
for consideration of acts that have been set-upon the people of Canada by
this government: discriminatory closures of small businesses during the COVID-19
lock-downs, the assignment of taxation towards the reduction of carbon when
Canada is the is the 10th highest producer at 1.6% globally and
yet Canada does little to nothing to curb the enrichment of the highest
carbon producers, and finally the enthusiastic printing of money causing
an over abundance of inflation, the which is worst tax of all.
The Sheriff of Nottingham and King John, along with a
handful of Roman leaders, would be proud of Justin Trudeau.
Children make
pronouncements of misinformation and disinformation towards evading punishment
and the good parent will show that child that lying only serves to increase the
punishment; of course within a utopia no child needs punishment, a policy which
resulted in questionable social outcomes.
The number of Ethics Commissioners over the last nine years or the
current lack thereof stands in testimony.
Within a classic democracy
many people believe in that a bottom-up system where the people are managing
the government rather than the government managing the people. This entire script can be flipped easily if
the population at large, including the political elites, remember that the word ‘minister’ still means
‘servant’ and that the power pyramid must always be balanced on its point for
their democracy to stand.
To those people who
have been playing the social risk aversion game; you may see now that you are risking
living in a world increasing in social adversity.
- A Quote -
Joseph Goebbels
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people
will eventually come to believe it. The
lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the
State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal
enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State.”
