MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Setting Up Crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine

Posted by M. C. on February 9, 2022

Despite crocodile tears that U.S. officials will openly shed for the people of Ukraine, the truth is that U.S. officials couldn’t care one whit how many of them are killed, injured, or maimed in such an invasion, any more than they were concerned about the people of Afghanistan who were killed, injured, and maimed after U.S. officials succeeded in goading the Soviets to invade Afghanistan or, for that matter, after the Pentagon and the CIA invaded and occupied the country in 2001.

Setting Up Crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine

by Jacob G. Hornberger

As I have watched how the U.S. national-security establishment has set up its latest crisis, this one in Ukraine, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how it set up a similar crisis in Afghanistan in 1979. 

Back then, the goal of U.S. national-security state officials was to goad the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan. U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski put it succinctly when he told President Carter, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.”

What he meant by that was the opportunity of getting Soviet soldiers killed, maimed, and injured for no good reason, just as the Pentagon and the CIA did to tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Additionally, the Soviet Union would have to waste large sums of taxpayer money, just as the U.S. government also did in Vietnam.

To goad the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, U.S. officials began supporting the anti-Soviet resistance that was committed to removing a pro-Soviet regime from power. U.S. officials figured that faced with the possibility that Afghanistan might end up with a pro-U.S. regime, the Soviets would have no choice but to invade.

The scheme worked brilliantly. The Soviets invaded on December 24, 1979, and for the next decade were bogged down in a guerrilla war, much like the United States was when it invaded Vietnam and, for that matter, when it invaded Afghanistan in 2001. In the process, many Soviet soldiers were killed, maimed, and injured, just as U.S. officials hoped they would be. Moreover, the war helped to bankrupt the Soviet Union, which ultimately led to its dismantling. 

Needless to say, U.S. national-security state officials were ecstatic over what they had accomplished. As Brzezinski gloated, “We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” 

Of course, the U.S. government played the innocent and portrayed the Soviet Union as a horrible aggressor. The following year, the U.S. government boycotted the Summer Olympics in Russia to protest Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.

When asked in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 whether he regretted any of this, Brzezinski was shocked that anyone would even ask such a question. He responded, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.’ Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.”

The interviewer then asked, “And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?” Brezinski responded, “What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

Of course, that interview was conducted prior to the blowback of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. I can’t help but wonder whether Brzezinski would have considered his scheme to be worth it in light of what those attacks did to America.

The irony is that the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1989 also brought a sudden and surprising end to the U.S. national-security state’s Cold War racket, which was guaranteeing them a perpetual flow of ever-increasing amounts of U.S. taxpayer money into the coffers of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA. 

That was when U.S. officials went into the Middle East and began poking hornets’ nests, which succeeded in producing terrorist blowback. That’s when we got the “war on terrorism,” which replaced the “war on communism.” That guaranteed the continuous flow of ever-increasing amounts of U.S. taxpayer money into the pockets of the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the entire “defense” industry. 

But U.S. officials weren’t about to let go of the Russians so easily. Rather than dismantle NATO, which was nothing more than a Cold War dinosaur, they used the organization to gobble up former members of the Warsaw Pact, with the aim of stationing U.S. troops, missiles, and tanks closer and closer to Russia’s borders. The scheme ultimately called for NATO to absorb Ukraine, which would mean that the Pentagon and the CIA would be able to install their missiles, tanks, and troops on Russia’s border. 

Thus, their latest scheme has placed Russia in the position of choosing between invading Ukraine, which would thereby prevent the Pentagon and the CIA from installing their troops, missiles, and tanks on Russia’s border versus letting NATO absorb Ukraine, which would enable the Pentagon and the CIA to install their troops, missiles, and tanks on Russia’s border.

If Russia invades, there is no doubt that the U.S. national-security establishment will, once again, play the innocent and cry out against those aggressive Russians. And make no mistake about it: Despite crocodile tears that U.S. officials will openly shed for the people of Ukraine, the truth is that U.S. officials couldn’t care one whit how many of them are killed, injured, or maimed in such an invasion, any more than they were concerned about the people of Afghanistan who were killed, injured, and maimed after U.S. officials succeeded in goading the Soviets to invade Afghanistan or, for that matter, after the Pentagon and the CIA invaded and occupied the country in 2001. The people of Ukraine are as much pawns in the evil machinations of the U.S. national-security establishment as the people of Afghanistan.

EMAIL

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Death Wish: Fighting a Cold War With China

Posted by M. C. on February 9, 2022

However, the fact that making a joke about 9/11 being a good thing to these same people would likely be massively offensive to them is a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance that drives American foreign policy. When those people go out and vote, they are voting for politicians who think exactly the same way they do and decide American policy towards China. Thus, the sarcasm becomes reality.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/death-wish-fighting-a-cold-war-with-china/

by Starte Butone

Recently, there has been an increased desire among the military establishment in the United States to intervene in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Such a push has been made by politicians, public figures, and talking heads from both sides of the political spectrum. Massive spending bills aimed at “countering” China tend to pass through Congress with ease, with the only real opposition coming from congressmen who don’t think they’re strong enough. Promises by the Biden administration to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion have brought tensions with China to their highest point in generations.

Of course, as anyone reading this article should know, the foolishness of going to war with China over Taiwan is virtually incomprehensible. China, as of the time of this writing, has hundreds of nuclear warheads in their arsenal, the majority of which are fusion weapons. China has promised to declare total war on the United States, even potentially escalating to the use of nuclear weapons, if the U.S. does so much as dock a warship in Taiwan.

To fully understand the way Chinese people look at this topic, one must first understand a little history. In the 1930s, China was involved in a civil war between two main groups: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), led by Mao Zedong, and the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), led by Chiang-Kai Shek. The human rights violations perpetrated by Mao Zedong and the Communist Party are well known by most in the West, having starved people to death by the millions in the later “Great Leap Forward” period and executing countless political opponents.

However, the human rights violations of Chiang Kai-Shek are not as well known. Chiang executed his political opponents by the millions during the Civil War period. Additionally, the scorched-Earth policies used by the KMT during the Civil War and World War II killed millions more, in addition to even more millions of people who died as a result of corruption within the agricultural system and mis-allocation of food. Given that the KMT ruled over the majority of China at this point in time, it is reasonable to assume that the Chinese people would be willing to accept any alternative to their rule, even from people as unethical as the Communist party.

At the end of the Chinese Civil War, the U.S. military built up defenses around Taiwan and prevented the PRC from taking the island, leaving it de facto independent to this day. Given the history of relations between the two countries, one can understand just why the Chinese view Taiwan so negatively. In the eyes of most Chinese (and certainly the CCP) Taiwan is as bad as Nazi Germany is to us. Given Chiang Kai-Shek’s human rights record, they weren’t really all that wrong for a time.

China has promised to invade Taiwan as soon as they declare independence.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Challenge of Foreign Policy Free Riding: Limited Government for Me, Not for Thee

Posted by M. C. on February 9, 2022

in 8 of 16 European states said they opposed fighting for NATO allies against Russia. In another three countries pluralities rejected defending their neighbors. The overall median result was 50 to 38 percent against. In Poland, where caterwauling about the supposed Russian threat is constant, opponents outpolled proponents by 43 to 40 percent. One can imagine their response if they had been asked about risking life and limb on behalf of Kyiv,

by Doug Bandow

https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2022/02/08/the-challenge-of-foreign-policy-free-riding-limited-government-for-me-not-for-thee/

Free riding is a constant of international relations. That is evident in Europe today.

The Ukraine crisis understandably has Europe on edge. But no one – Russian, Ukrainian, America, or European – believes that Europeans will fight for Kyiv. To simply raise the issue is to elicit a snicker. Modern Europeans believe their birthright is not to have to fight, that if they are threatened their defense is be provided by Americans.

Ironically, that assumption reflects as much contempt as respect for the US. Many Europeans possess a barely suppressed sense of moral superiority over the colossus of the New World, with its overt capitalist ethos, ragged welfare state, surplusage of guns, widespread religious commitment, rejection of solidarity politics, and ignorance of all things foreign. To be fair, criticisms across the Pond are not without some basis, as is evident from the bitter, increasingly dangerous political divides and policy failures in America today. Still, even those Europeans filled with condescension continue to look westward for protection from the vicissitudes of a dangerous world.

However, widespread disdain for the results of the vaunted American political experiment has done little to diminish the desire to clamber aboard the US defense dole. Europeans who routinely deride Washington’s blundering interventions abroad nevertheless even more loudly insist that American policymakers should constantly reassure them that sufficient American military personnel are always available to die on their behalf should that become necessary. To question this demand is to be denounced as an isolationist and worse.

Consider European military spending. NATO stands for North America and the Others. According to NATO figures, America came in at 3.6 percent of GDP. Of the other 29 members, only Greece devoted more effort than the US – to confront not Russia, but long-term enemy though fellow alliance member Turkey. Another outlier was tiny Croatia, which approached three percent.

France, Great Britain, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia hit or broke two percent, NATO’s agreed-upon standard. Everyone else, including Germany, Italy, and Spain, fell below. Even two percent is not impressive for nations – most notably Poland and the three Baltic States – which spend every moment of everyday warning about Moscow’s every move, complaining about the unfairness of the world, and demanding a permanent US troop presence. Do they believe their freedom is worth only two cents on the Euro? The gulf in combat capabilities between America and Europe is even greater than the spending differential. But then, as noted before, defense is Washington’s, not Brussels’ job.

Since 2014 Russia’s abusive behavior and Washington’s whining have spurred some European countries to spend more. But not that much more. And Europe’s largest nations with the greatest potential – Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Britain – are unlikely to do enough to confront the presumed threat they want America to defend them from.

Indeed, Europeans evidence no shame in forever cheap-riding on the US. For instance, in a 2020 Pew Research Center poll majorities in 8 of 16 European states said they opposed fighting for NATO allies against Russia. In another three countries pluralities rejected defending their neighbors. The overall median result was 50 to 38 percent against. In Poland, where caterwauling about the supposed Russian threat is constant, opponents outpolled proponents by 43 to 40 percent. One can imagine their response if they had been asked about risking life and limb on behalf of Kyiv, to which their nation has no legal obligation. Predictably, however, most Europeans said they expected the US to drop everything elsewhere and save them, if necessary. They don’t believe their allies are worth supporting, but no worries: the Yanks, though unsuited for inclusion in polite European society, will take care of everything.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Alexa Refuses To Play Joe Rogan’s Podcast

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2022

Watch as this Joe Rogan fan fruitlessly tries to get Alexa to play the Joe Rogan Experience.

Bee seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

How Empires Die

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2022

When the state / empire loses the ability to recognize and solve core problems of security and fairness, it will be replaced by another arrangement that is more adaptable and adept at solving problems. Artifice, fantasy, magical thinking, excuses and absurd cover stories are not part of problem-solving. Problems can only be solved if reality is faced directly.

When reality is unacceptable because it negatively impacts those stripmining the system for private gain, the state / empire is already on its fatal spiral to collapse.

https://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb22/empires-die2-22.html

Charles Hugh Smith

When the state / empire loses the ability to recognize and solve core problems of security and fairness, it will be replaced by another arrangement that is more adaptable and adept at solving problems.

From a systems perspective, nation-states and empires arise when they are superior solutions to security compared to whatever arrangement they replace: feudalism, warlords, tribal confederations, etc.

States and empires fail when they are no longer the solution, they are the problem. As the book The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization explains, when the dissolution of the state / empire becomes the pain-reducing solution, the inhabitants withdraw their support and the empire loses its grip and expires.

As I explain in my new book, Global Crisis, National Renewal, states and markets are problem-solving structures. These structures solve problems by optimizing adaptability and beneficial synergies that reinforce one another as evolutionary advances.

The rise of the middle class is an example of beneficial synergies: as this new class gains access to credit, expertise, trade, enterprise and pricing power for their labor, they have the means to transform their labor into capital by saving earnings and investing the capital in assets, new enterprises, etc. which then generate income from capital which fuels synergistic increases in credit, expertise, assets and income from investments.

States / empires fail and expire when they elevate the fatal synergies created by self-serving elites. Rather than encourage the dynamics of adaptation–competition, transparency, accountability, experimentation and dissent– the elites suppresses these forces as threats to their monopolies, cartels and wealth.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

America’s real adversaries are its European and other allies: The U.S. aim is to keep them from trading with China and Russia

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2022

The success of China’s industrial policy with a mixed economy and state control of the monetary and credit system has led U.S. strategists to fear that Western European and Asian economies may find their advantage to lie in integrating more closely with China and Russia. The U.S. seems to have no response to such a global rapprochement with China and Russia except economic sanctions and military belligerence

America’s real adversaries are its European and other allies: The U.S. aim is to keep them from trading with China and Russia

By Michael Hudson

The Iron Curtain of the 1940s and ‘50s was ostensibly designed to isolate Russia from Western Europe – to keep out Communist ideology and military penetration. Today’s sanctions regime is aimed inward, to prevent America’s NATO and other Western allies from opening up more trade and investment with Russia and China. The aim is not so much to isolate Russia and China as to hold these allies firmly within America’s own economic orbit. Allies are to forego the benefits of importing Russian gas and Chinese products, buying much higher-priced U.S. LNG and other exports, capped by more U.S. arms.

The sanctions that U.S. diplomats are insisting that their allies impose against trade with Russia and China are aimed ostensibly at deterring a military buildup. But such a buildup cannot really be the main Russian and Chinese concern. They have much more to gain by offering mutual economic benefits to the West. So the underlying question is whether Europe will find its advantage in replacing U.S. exports with Russian and Chinese supplies and the associated mutual economic linkages.

What worries American diplomats is that Germany, other NATO nations and countries along the Belt and Road route understand the gains that can be made by opening up peaceful trade and investment. If there is no Russian or Chinese plan to invade or bomb them, what is the need for NATO? What is the need for such heavy purchases of U.S. military hardware by America’s affluent allies? And if there is no inherently adversarial relationship, why do foreign countries need to sacrifice their own trade and financial interests by relying exclusively on U.S. exporters and investors?

These are the concerns that have prompted French Prime Minister Macron to call forth the ghost of Charles de Gaulle and urge Europe to turn away from what he calls NATO’s “brain-dead” Cold War and beak with the pro-U.S. trade arrangements that are imposing rising costs on Europe while denying it potential gains from trade with Eurasia. Even Germany is balking at demands that it freeze by this coming March by going without Russian gas.

Instead of a real military threat from Russia and China, the problem for American strategists is the absence of such a threat. All countries have come to realize that the world has reached a point at which no industrial economy has the manpower and political ability to mobilize a standing army of the size that would be needed to invade or even wage a major battle with a significant adversary. That political cost makes it uneconomic for Russia to retaliate against NATO adventurism prodding at its western border trying to incite a military response. It’s just not worth taking over Ukraine.

America’s rising pressure on its allies threatens to drive them out of the U.S. orbit. For over 75 years they had little practical alternative to U.S. hegemony. But that is now changing. America no longer has the monetary power and seemingly chronic trade and balance-of-payments surplus that enabled it to draw up the world’s trade and investment rules in 1944-45. The threat to U.S. dominance is that China, Russia and Mackinder’s Eurasian World Island heartland are offering better trade and investment opportunities than are available from the United States with its increasingly desperate demand for sacrifices from its NATO and other allies.

The most glaring example is the U.S. drive to block Germany from authorizing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to obtain Russian gas for the coming cold weather. Angela Merkel agreed with Donald Trump to spend $1 billion building a new LNG port to become more dependent on highly priced U.S. LNG. (The plan was cancelled after the U.S. and German elections changed both leaders.) But Germany has no other way of heating many of its houses and office buildings (or supplying its fertilizer companies) than with Russian gas.

The only way left for U.S. diplomats to block European purchases is to goad Russia into a military response and then claim that avenging this response outweighs any purely national economic interest.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Facts About SLAVERY They Don’t Teach You at School” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2022

This is an excerpt from ‘Intellectuals and Race’ — https://amzn.to/3rknNP4

https://youtu.be/3_3wyRaCD34

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Wake-Up Call

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2022

Wake-Up Call

We now enter a period of danger as the sleepwalkers of America awaken from their induced consensus trance and begin to understand how they were harmed, swindled, and robbed by a corrupt, criminal officialdom. It will hurt badly because the public wanted so desperately to believe that vaccines would make them safe from the mysteriously conjured Covid-19 virus — and, more than that, would cure their gnawing anxiety over the wreckage of American life caused by what appears to be leadership hostage to sinister forces.

I must say, I believe the truth of our predicament will grow a whole lot weirder as we stumble into springtime. The weirdest part of all will be when America learns exactly who and what have been the prime generators of our disorder. The disillusionment will be cosmic.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why can’t we see God?

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2022

Aussie Nationalist

Why can’t we see God? Though misrepresented by rationalists as an obstacle to reasonable supernatural belief, this question deserves a satisfactory reply. In response, there are various cogent reasons we cannot see God, some of which are outlined below.

God is a spirit

Everything that exists is either material or spiritual. A material thing is something that you can see, touch, smell, or hear. A spiritual thing is real, but it is not material… God is a spirit–He has no body, therefore you cannot see God (page 12 of Lessons in the Catholic Faith, approved by Rev. Edward B. Brueggemen S.J.). 

This is the main reason we cannot see God. To those who regard this explanation as a convenient excuse, consider: You likewise cannot see your thoughts–or take a picture of them–for they arise from the spiritual, immaterial intellect. No-one can deny the existence of our thoughts, therefore, our inability to see God does not preclude His existence. 

The Divine Essence and the human intellect 

Given the disproportion between the infinite Divine Essence, and the finite intellectual faculties of creatures, in this life, God cannot be the object of such faculties. Accordingly, humans must be strengthened by a Divine light and assimilated to His infinitely simple Intellect, in order to gaze upon the Divine Essence (page 173 of A Manual of Catholic Theology, by Joseph Wilhelm D.D. PH.D and Thomas B. Scannell D.D).

For those who die in a state of sanctifying grace, this process of assimilation occurs, to enable their admission into the Beatific Vision. In this life, however, we cannot (except for extremely rare instances of private inspiration) see God.

His created effects

Emphasis should not be placed on the direct visibility of God and lack thereof. The key point, instead, is that through observing and reflecting on His created effects, we can deduce the logical necessity of an eternal, necessary, omnipotent God.

When we see footprints on the sand, we conclude that someone has passed that way. The universe is filled with the footprints of a Supreme Creator. Every single existing thing or being gives clear testimony of Him (page 12 of My Catholic Faith, approved by Rev. Louis LaRavoire Morrow, D.D; my emphasis).

Specifically, without accepting His existence, we cannot explain:

(a) The origin of matter, even the most elementary;

(b) The origin of motion;

(c) The origin of the very first living organism and of the spiritual soul of man; and

(d) The origin of the order and law so apparent in the universe (page 29 of My Catholic Faith).

The merit of faith

It can, indeed, be conceded that not being able to see God challenges the human intellect. Because His existence cannot be established through the senses alone, this agitates against the animal side of our nature.

Even so, there are good reasons for this challenge. Creation was undertaken for the glorification of God–not for our own good or on account of our prospective merits. Given this, a finite creature must personally expend effort, to have any hope in obtaining an eternal reward from his Creator. But there would be little effort on our part if we all necessarily knew that God existed–as opposed to believing in His existence. This is what makes faith meritorious: We cooperate with God’s grace by persisting in belief, irrespective of the difficulties imposed on the intellect and will.

After St. Thomas doubted the Resurrection, Jesus Christ appeared to and rebuked him along these lines:

Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed (John 20:29; my emphasis).

When considering the merit of belief in God from Him being unseen, it is fortunate that we cannot see God.

Our limited nature

As mentioned above, belief in God prescribes certain challenges on the intellect and will, especially those which emanate from the latter. From a Catholic perspective, belief in God results in strenuous moral obligations–concerning fasting, alcohol consumption, and sexual morality–making life more restricted in these ways than for an atheist. Many people, on these grounds, openly refuse to entertain the possibility of Catholic truth. The justification accompanying this refusal is generally simplistic, narrow-minded, and dismissive.

This refusal to engage is misconceived, because a limited, flawed perception of reality does not change objective reality or the consequences of our failing to recognise it. As regards objective reality, God is foremost: He is “the ultimate reality with which we are engaged during every moment of our existence and consciousness” (The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bentley Hart).

To deny God because He cannot be seen, is like to “a blind man who refuses to believe there is a sun, because he cannot see it. Is God limited because we are?” (page 25 of My Catholic Faith).

Our mediate knowledge of God

In this world, we are only ever granted to obtain a mediate, as opposed to a direct, knowledge of God. It should be kept in mind that this obscured knowledge of God shall be illuminated in the world to come, by means of the Beatific Vision. “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A night with the untouchables

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2022

What I haven’t noticed, not even once, are reporters from any of Canada’s news agencies walking among the trucks to find out who these people are.

They didn’t make high-falutin arguments from Plato’s Republic, Locke’s treatises, or Bagehot’s interpretation of Westminster parliamentary systems. Instead, they see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; and they said enough.

A night with the untouchables

Author David

I live in downtown Ottawa, right in the middle of the trucker convoy protest. They are literally camped out below my bedroom window. My new neighbours moved in on Friday and they seem determined to stay. I have read a lot about what my new neighbours are supposedly like, mostly from reporters and columnists who write from distant vantage points somewhere in the media heartland of Canada. Apparently the people who inhabit the patch of asphalt next to my bedroom are white supremacists, racists, hatemongers, pseudo-Trumpian grifters, and even QAnon-style nutters. I have a perfect view down Kent Street – the absolute ground zero of the convoy. In the morning, I see some protesters emerge from their trucks to stretch their legs, but mostly throughout the day they remain in their cabs honking their horns. At night I see small groups huddled in quiet conversations in their new found companionship. There is no honking at night. What I haven’t noticed, not even once, are reporters from any of Canada’s news agencies walking among the trucks to find out who these people are. So last night, I decided to do just that – I introduced myself to my new neighbours.

The Convoy on Kent Street. February 2, 2022.

At 10pm I started my walk along – and in – Kent Street. I felt nervous. Would these people shout at me? My clothes, my demeanour, even the way I walk screamed that I’m an outsider. All the trucks were aglow in the late evening mist, idling to maintain warmth, but all with ominously dark interiors. Standing in the middle of the convoy, I felt completely alone as though these giant monsters weren’t piloted by people but were instead autonomous transformer robots from some science fiction universe that had gone into recharging mode for the night. As I moved along I started to notice smatterings of people grouped together between the cabs sharing cigarettes or enjoying light laughs. I kept quiet and moved on. Nearby, I spotted a heavy duty pickup truck, and seeing the silhouette of a person in the driver’s seat, I waved. A young man, probably in his mid 20s, rolled down the window, said hello and I introduced myself. His girlfriend was reclined against the passenger side door with a pillow to proper her up as she watched a movie on her phone. I could easily tell it’s been an uncomfortable few nights. I asked how they felt and I told them I lived across the street. Immediate surprise washed over the young man’s face. He said, “You must hate us. But no one honks past 6pm!” That’s true. As someone who lives right on top of the convoy, there is no noise at night. I said, “No, I don’t hate anyone, but I wanted to find out about you.” The two were from Sudbury Ontario, having arrived on Friday with the bulk of the truckers. I ask what they hoped to achieve, and what they wanted. The young woman in the passenger seat moved forward, excited to share. They said that they didn’t want a country that forced people to get medical treatments such as vaccines. There was no hint of conspiracy theories in their conversation with me, not a hint of racist overtones or hateful demagoguery. I didn’t ask them if they had taken the vaccine, but they were adamant that they were not anti-vaxers.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »