democracy is not something that happens when you elect somebody in a ballot box, it's something that happens when members of the community get together and govern themselves. the model that antifa uses is actually an example of actual democracy, rather than some kind of antithesis to it. but, the burden of proof then falls on the antifascist body to ensure that what it is struggling against is real.

i've said this repeatedly: if i felt that antifa were actually struggling against actual nazis, i would be on their side in a second. the people marching in charlottesville were clearly actual nazis. as far as i can tell, that is the first time in recent months that that has actually been true.

you can't argue with nazis any more than you can argue with a lion. i understand his historical arguments, but i suspect that what he is saying is too literate for most americans to follow. this is something more tangible for people that don't know the history: imagine you're face to face with a mountain lion. do you think you're likely to talk your way out of this, or do you think you'd better defend yourself? now, let's all recognize that nazis have the mindset of remorseless predators. you are not an opponent, you are prey.

it's just absolutely imperative that you identify nazis correctly, and that you do not misidentify conservatives or liberals as nazis and then treat them the way you would treat nazis, which is what was happening at some of the other protests. and, the way you do that is you involve yourself in the collectives; the answer to the problems inherent to democracy are, in truth, almost always more democracy, as they are truly problems of democracy being poorly applied.

these are perspectives coming from an anarcho-communist, who is both a socialist and a civil libertarian. there's no conflict between these viewpoints; in truth, they make the most sense in conjunction with each other: true libertarianism is communism. you should be wary of people that want to set up a dichotomy, as what they are telling you is that they do not truly believe in civil rights and are using the situation for personal gain, and perhaps dangerously so.

he is right that there is no equivalency, but his arguments really leave a lot to be desired.

i also want to point out that if the administration starts falsely blaming attacks on leftists then it is not likely to be the consequence of some inability to deal with reality, but a tactic of suppression. i'll need to break my own advice here and use a historical comparison: hitler dissolved the legislature by burning it down and blaming it on communists, then claimed he needed special powers to fight them off. this is another reason why it is so important that antifascists pick their battles wisely as, equivalency or not, the reality is that the majority of the country abides by a pacifist christian value system that sees all violence as equivalent and will be easily manipulated into handing over stronger police powers should it be shown enough pictures of "left-wing extremists".

smashing nazis is necessary. but, you have to make sure that what you're smashing is actually a nazi. it's critically important.

i did an apology tour last night to the people that i puked all over. i think it went well, although there was an encounter afterwards at donovan's that i simply didn't understand at all. i reiterate: i didn't understand at all. maybe somebody can explain that to me at some later date. i dunno.

but, i'm learning that i have doppelganger in detroit. this person may frequent ann arbor, as well as the clubs in corktown and mexicantown in detroit.

i suppose it would be useful to meet this person. however, i can't react to things i didn't do. and, i'm sorry - it's kind of other people's responsibility to make sure they've got the right person.

october 7, 1763.

it was actually an important date in the history of both the united states and canada: the royal proclamation, that declared that the king of england has sole ownership of all indigenous land in north america. therefore, colonists were forbidden by law from purchasing land directly from the native americans. instead, only the crown could buy the land from the natives, which would then partition it to the colonists using a feudal parcel system that we refer to today as 'fee simple' - all land in the colonies would be arranged into fiefdoms owned by the crown, for rent to colonists. this is an understood factor in the war of independence, as the colonists wanted what is called allodial title, in buying land from the natives, who up to that day were considered sovereign land holders under british law. this would give them real ownership, and avoid the ability of the king to inflict property taxes.

the royal proclamation essentially extinguished a right of indigenous land title under british law; at the stroke of a pen, the king declared himself the owner of the entire continent, despite the existence of sovereign tribes living on the land.

you would think that indigenous groups in canada would look at this day as the darkest in their history, as it was the end of their legal sovereignty under colonial law. but, they are instead taught that this was the day that the king recognized their rights under the law as british subjects. there were public celebrations in indigenous communities to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the proclamation.

i've been in absolutely surreal debates with indigenous people around this topic that have just left me baffled.

this is a small step. but, everybody should welcome it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-first-nation-ottawa-sign-self-governing-education-agreement/article35996541/?reqid=8b5fdb28-f90e-4239-a0eb-e5dc62b02f71

treating your workers like serfs is not a "specific efficiency", and bringing in the ricardian machinery around it is simply disingenuous. but, you expect that from the fraser institute.

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/unifor-hopes-to-put-mexico-in-check-with-once-in-a-generation-nafta-re-negotiation

i've been over this with nafta polling before: nobody's ever opposed the idea of a trade agreement with the united states, what's always been contentious are certain aspects of it. you have to get really modular in your polling if you want to get a handle on what people are thinking about this. you want to see the trees here, not the forest; these vague questions just obscure the point.

i was too young to be actively engaged in the debate. but, i think that the liberals were both right to oppose it and right to sign it - and i think that most of the ways they criticized the deal have proven astute and poignant, and overwhelmingly correct.


remember: the liberal position was never against reciprocity (it was their idea...), but against certain components of the deal that were seen as surrendering sovereignty. what happened, of course, is that the ndp performed very well under broadbent and the party split the vote; polls in the 80s were not aligned with the conservative position, but split between the liberal position (necessarily trade, but not necessarily nafta) and the ndp position (no trade deal at all).

i certainly hope the party approaches renegotiating the deal with the same broad mindset it had in 1988, with an attempt to try and fix some of the problems they had to let get away at the time. again: their criticisms of the deal have proven astute, poignant and overwhelmingly correct. there's the part on chapter 11, for example: i'm not convinced that a turner or chretien government would have been able to overcome opposition in their own party to sign a deal with that in it. and, it has caused serious damage in canada. we would be far better off without that chapter. it probably wasn't worth cancelling the deal over, though. freeland included that in her list of demands, and you just wouldn't see that kind of language coming from a conservative government because they've never opposed it.

on the other hand, democrats and republicans say basically the same thing on trade; you could take statements by bush and obama and throw them in a hat and mix them up and legitimately not know who said what, except maybe through hints in sophistication of language. and, obama ran and won on the same buy america provisions that trump ran and won on, too.

granted: in the end, the liberals may end up sounding like the conservatives on trade. more precise polling would demonstrate that this will be a liability for them. but, if the older voices in the party win out, the canadian position on certain things may even be (perhaps pleasantly) unrecognizable to even well-informed canadians. as the american trade people have up to this point done essentially all of their trade negotiations with conservatives, they may not see this coming, or even be aware of these differences, and we may catch them off guard on certain points that the conservatives have never opposed, or bring issues to the table that the conservatives never brought to the table.

the liberals should know that people are going to be paying attention, and are going to want to see the liberals demonstrate that they are not just the same thing as conservatives, on trade. this is a substantive voting issue. and, the party has an opportunity to finally define itself properly, on it, by drawing attention to the differences, which is what it should be doing, at least domestically.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-nafta-talks-polls-1.4247820

aug 15-16 vlog, where i go back to the anarchist house to apologize for the food poisoning outburst, unaware of the potential underlying cause of iron deficiency.