Monday, September 15, 2008 — Of Oil and Elections

If one exam­ines close­ly the speech that Stephen Harp­er gave to an Amer­i­can con­ser­v­a­tive think-tank, before he became our Prime Min­is­ter [1], one is struck imme­di­ate­ly by this: our Prime Min­is­ter hates Cana­da and despis­es Cana­di­ans. We are, in his own words “a sec­ond-rate country”[2]. In state­ment after state­ment, Mr. Harp­er made it clear that his only loy­al­ty is to the rich and pow­er­ful in oth­er coun­tries, and not to Cana­da or Cana­di­ans. For most of his life, the Rich and Pow­er­ful lived in the Unit­ed States, and that is where his spir­it has hov­ered. The Unit­ed States that he wor­ships, with the most abject and slav­ish ser­vil­i­ty, is not, of course, the real Unit­ed States, the one embod­ied in the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, or in its two cen­turies of strug­gle for free­dom and jus­tice. No, what Mr. Harp­er wor­ships is the cur­rent, King George’s ver­sion of the Unit­ed States, the one that has been betrayed, degrad­ed, debauched and bank­rupt­ed by a gen­er­a­tion of Con­ser­v­a­tive treason.

In many doc­u­ment­ed state­ments, Harp­er has made it per­fect­ly plain that he has noth­ing but con­tempt for his own coun­try and its peo­ple. The sum of them reveal that he has the cring­ing men­tal­i­ty of the colo­nial, the man who berates his fel­low coun­try­men as “sec­ond-rate” pre­cise­ly because he is third-rate, and masks his own inad­e­qua­cy in a dog-like devo­tion to an exter­nal pow­er. Gen­er­a­tions ago, when this coun­try was carv­ing out its own sense of inde­pen­dence, we were plagued by very sim­i­lar peo­ple. At that time, the colo­nial men­tal­i­ty looked to Moth­er Britain. Thanks to their influ­ence, tens of thou­sands of inno­cent Cana­di­an farm boys were ground into ham­burg­er in the trench­es of Flan­ders, for no rea­son oth­er than to glo­ri­fy the incom­pe­tent and par­a­sitic aris­to­crats of Europe. Harper’s mind works the same way, except that he will buy his self-esteem by throw­ing away the lives of Cana­di­an boys in Afghanistan, and he looks to the pomp and splen­dor of the Roy­al Court in Wash­ing­ton for approval, rather than the Court of St. James. If Amer­i­ca fades, who­ev­er out­side of Cana­da holds the shini­est crown or throws the most lav­ish par­ties will win his loyalty.

Today, the man who gave that servile and cow­ard­ly speech is our elect­ed Prime Min­is­ter. Thank god he only forms a minor­i­ty gov­ern­ment. Our “sec­ond-rate” par­lia­men­tary democ­ra­cy, which brooks no arro­gant “Deciders”, has not let him get away with just hand­ing the coun­try over to his mas­ters. We do, after all, have oppo­si­tion par­ties, which can occa­sion­al­ly sum­mon the ener­gy to get off their butts and oppose.

The image of his idol has become some­what tar­nished. Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tives have, after a gen­er­a­tion of pow­er, man­aged to destroy the econ­o­my of the world’s wealth­i­est coun­try, and hand­ed over most of its assets to the Com­mu­nist Par­ty. They have destroyed as much as they could of Amer­i­ca’s lib­er­ties and enlight­ened tra­di­tions. They have per­vert­ed and cor­rupt­ed democ­ra­cy, and they have sold out Amer­i­ca to for­eign kings, gang­sters, and ter­ror­ists. In trea­so­nous act after trea­so­nous act (no oth­er term fits the facts), the Repub­li­can Par­ty has done its best to destroy the real Amer­i­ca, in the name of a pho­ny “Amer­i­ca” carved in the image of a Gulf sheik­dom. Their loy­al­ty, like Harper’s, now lies out­side of their own coun­try, and their own peo­ple. The essence of Con­ser­v­a­tive thought is the wor­ship of pow­er, and if pow­er resides else­where, then loy­al­ty to one’s own peo­ple flies out the win­dow. Harper’s entrance­ment with his per­vert­ed ver­sion of Amer­i­ca is, now that Amer­i­ca itself is degrad­ed, eas­i­ly trans­formed into servi­tude to the inter­na­tion­al aris­toc­ra­cy of wealth and pow­er. That glob­al aris­toc­ra­cy has no home, no peo­ple, no nation.

The rapid col­lapse of the Amer­i­can econ­o­my has cre­at­ed a cri­sis of con­fi­dence. Con­ser­v­a­tives in all places and times have sought to loot, cor­rupt, and destroy economies, and their pre­da­tions are so obvi­ous, now, in the Unit­ed States, that the peo­ple are stunned, dis­con­tent­ed, and start­ing to doubt the slick pro­pa­gan­da that has been shout­ed at them for decades. Amer­i­cans now face their most impor­tant elec­tion since the Civ­il War, one in which they must decide whether to con­tin­ue delud­ing them­selves, and con­tin­ue march­ing down the path to obliv­ion, or to face hard facts and redis­cov­er the idea of freedom..

We in Cana­da also face an elec­tion, dur­ing the same peri­od. In a par­lia­men­tary sys­tem, the gov­ern­ment in pow­er calls an elec­tion when it feels it has the best chance to win. In Harper’s case, this is a very small win­dow. The pre­ced­ing Lib­er­al gov­ern­ment hand­ed Harp­er an econ­o­my strength­ened by a decade of bal­anced bud­gets, sur­plus sav­ings, and reduced nation­al debt. With­in a few short years, Harpers’ Con­ser­v­a­tive regime has worked hard to waste that mon­ey. Harp­er is deter­mined to entan­gle us irrev­o­ca­bly in expen­sive and point­less for­eign war­fare, in which we oper­ate as mere step’n’fetchits for the White House. Bil­lions upon bil­lions of our cash reserves have already been thrown away ― most­ly hand­ed out to Afghan drug war­lords, tin-pot dic­ta­tors and for­eign arma­ments man­u­fac­tur­ers. Harp­er wants to throw away even more, in an open-end­ed com­mit­ment to eter­nal servi­tude, as colo­nial Gurkhas for the Puk­ka Sa’bs. The sur­plus is gone, and we are soon to con­front a glob­al reces­sion with our accounts emp­ty. In the mean­time, the Con­ser­v­a­tive Par­ty’s domes­tic eco­nom­ic poli­cies (based on the the­o­ry that we must, above all, cater to the car­tel of glob­al oil gang­sters) have erod­ed our indus­tri­al base to the bare bones.

Oil, you see, lies at the heart of it, just as oil lies at the heart of Repub­li­can trea­son in Amer­i­ca. The glob­al oil indus­try is pure­ly a crea­ture of State Pow­er. Nine­ty-five per­cent of all the oil in the world is con­trolled by State-owned enti­ties, so it is non­sense to talk about oil as if it was a “mar­ket”. Most of the states involved are pure dic­ta­tor­ships. Armies, prison cells, tor­ture cham­bers, and secret police deter­mine the price and move­ment of oil. Only a small per­cent­age of the world’s oil is pro­duced in democ­ra­cies. Even the remain­ing five per­cent, the­o­ret­i­cal­ly “pri­vate”, is in fact most­ly owned by Exxon, and if you exam­ine Exxon’s inter­nal struc­ture, it is mere­ly a hold­ing cor­po­ra­tion whose sub­sidiaries are state-owned, or owned by mil­i­tary thugs or hered­i­tary princes. In oth­er words, the glob­al oil indus­try is Communism.

Now, as far as Harp­er is con­cerned, these inter­na­tion­al gang­sters are the “right­ful” own­ers of Canada’s oil, and his eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy is sim­ply to make sure they get as much prof­it from it as pos­si­ble. They are his boss­es, and it is their inter­ests that he serves, not ours. Over and over again, Harp­er has demon­strat­ed that he will serve any pow­er­ful enti­ty, as long as it is not in this coun­try, and not us. One of his most recent pol­i­cy ini­tia­tives, dis­guised as con­cern for Canada’s secu­ri­ty in the arc­tic, is to have the Cana­di­an tax­pay­er foot the bill for for­eign oil com­pa­nies’ explo­ration. Their “invest­ment” is to con­sist of col­lect­ing the prof­its with­out risk, while we pro­vide the grunt work for free.

But what is the truth of the mat­ter? Who right­ful­ly owns Canada’s oil? The oil under Cana­di­an soil belongs to us. It belongs to all Cana­di­ans, and its exploita­tion and dis­po­si­tion should only be con­trolled by us. The needs of Cana­di­an con­sumers and indus­try should come first and fore­most, above all oth­er con­cerns, in this dis­po­si­tion. It is stu­pid and wrong for us to allow for­eign­ers to “own” our oil, and it is mon­strous fol­ly and evil to allow for­eign dic­ta­tors, geno­ci­dal mon­sters, and inter­na­tion­al crim­i­nals to have any­thing to do with it. If we had an ounce of sense, we would imme­di­ate­ly: 1) ter­mi­nate all for­eign claims to own­er­ship in Cana­di­an petro­le­um extrac­tion and refine­ment, 2) assign oil explo­ration, extrac­tion, and trans­porta­tion to pri­vate, %100 Cana­di­an-owned, and com­pet­i­tive com­pa­nies, licensed by us, the own­ers, and forced to com­pete on a gen­uine free mar­ket, 3) require all Cana­di­an pro­duc­tion to meet domes­tic needs first, before export, and 4) make it ille­gal to export unre­fined petro­le­um. Only refined petro­le­um prod­ucts should ever leave our ter­ri­to­ry, and that only after our own needs, present and future, are safe­ly met. Com­pa­nies in Cana­da should be forced to com­pete in effi­cien­cy by our leas­ing licens­es to many small oper­a­tors, rather than a few large ones, and these should not be allowed to ver­ti­cal­ly inte­grate. Explo­ration, extrac­tion, trans­porta­tion, refin­ing, and prod­uct mar­ket­ing should all be kept sep­a­rate, and com­pelled to real­ly com­pete. What we need is not Con­ser­v­a­tive “mar­ket the­o­ry”, dis­guis­ing mer­can­tilist manip­u­la­tions of state pow­er, but a real free mar­ket, which Con­ser­v­a­tives and Cor­po­rate Pow­er have always, and always will hate and oppose.

Con­ser­v­a­tives love to yap about “nation­al secu­ri­ty”, but in the most obvi­ous and crit­i­cal area of nation­al secu­ri­ty, they show no con­cern at all. Noth­ing could be more impor­tant to our nation­al secu­ri­ty than the own­er­ship of our own ener­gy sources. It has reached the point that it is easy to tell what is a real coun­try and what is mere­ly a con­quered ter­ri­to­ry, or colony in dis­guise. Real coun­tries con­trol their own ener­gy, and their own prop­er­ty. Cana­da has more than enough oil and nat­ur­al gas for its own needs, albeit much of it expen­sive to extract, but we have fool­ish­ly hand­ed con­trol of it to for­eign­ers, many of whom are dis­gust­ing crim­i­nal vermin.

Few Cana­di­ans have yet expe­ri­enced the dis­en­chant­ment that Amer­i­cans have with Con­ser­v­a­tive ide­o­log­i­cal quack­ery. Only those who are los­ing indus­tri­al jobs in Ontario and Que­bec are com­ing up short, and it will take some time for the long-term dam­age of Con­ser­v­a­tive poli­cies to affect most Cana­di­ans direct­ly. Harp­er has a win­dow of oppor­tu­ni­ty. If the Cana­di­an econ­o­my can limp along with­out a dra­mat­ic deba­cle for anoth­er month, then he can still use all the old lies and scams to good effect. The oppo­si­tion is divid­ed between the Lib­er­al, New Demo­c­ra­t­ic, Bloc and Green par­ties, which, of course, hate each oth­er more than the gov­ern­ing pow­er, and none of which seems to have any grasp of what would con­sti­tute effec­tive cam­paign­ing. It has been par­tic­u­lar­ly frus­trat­ing to wit­ness the Lib­er­al Party’s inabil­i­ty to go on the offen­sive, and inabil­i­ty to grasp what issues mat­ter. Harpers’ coterie of Amer­i­can and Amer­i­can-trained spin-manip­u­la­tors and strat­e­gy advi­sors have already devised an effec­tive, if entire­ly unprin­ci­pled cam­paign strat­e­gy. Just as in the Unit­ed States, this is a cru­cial elec­tion, decid­ing our des­tiny over the long term. If we retain Harp­er, the results will be as eco­nom­i­cal­ly and moral­ly dis­as­trous for us as they will be for Amer­i­cans, if they are fool­ish enough to elect McCain.


[1] Harp­er, Stephen — address to the Coun­cil for Nation­al Pol­i­cy, Mon­tre­al, June of 1997.
[2] Harp­er, Stephen — pub­lished let­ter to the Nation­al Post, Decem­ber 8, 2000.


As usurpa­tion is the exer­cise of pow­er, which anoth­er hath the right to, so tyran­ny is the exer­cise of pow­er beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. And this is mak­ing use of the pow­er any­one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own pri­vate, sep­a­rate advan­tage. When the gov­er­nor, how­ev­er enti­tled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his com­mands and actions are not direct­ed to the preser­va­tion of the prop­er­ties of his peo­ple, but the sat­is­fac­tion of his own ambi­tion, revenge, cov­etous­ness, or any oth­er irreg­u­lar passion.…
… the end why they choose and autho­rize a leg­isla­tive is, that there be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the prop­er­ties of all the mem­bers of the soci­ety; to lim­it the pow­er, and mod­er­ate the domin­ion, of every part and mem­ber of the soci­ety: for since it nev­er can be sup­posed to be the will of the soci­ety that the leg­isla­tive should have a pow­er to destroy that which every­one designs to secure by enter­ing into soci­ety, and for which the peo­ple sub­mit­ted them­selves to leg­is­la­tors of their own mak­ing; when­ev­er the leg­is­la­tors endeav­our to take away and destroy the prop­er­ty of the peo­ple, or to reduce them to slav­ery under arbi­trary pow­er, they put them­selves into a state of war with the peo­ple, who are there­upon absolved from any fur­ther obe­di­ence, and are left to the com­mon refuge, which God hath pro­vid­ed for all men, against force and vio­lence. When­so­ev­er there­fore the leg­isla­tive shall trans­gress this fun­da­men­tal rule of soci­ety; and either by ambi­tion, fear, fol­ly, or cor­rup­tion, endeav­our to grasp them­selves, or put into the hands of any oth­er, an absolute pow­er over the lives, lib­er­ties, and estates of the peo­ple; by this breach of trust they for­feit the pow­er the peo­ple had put into their hands for quite con­trary ends, and it devolves to the peo­ple, who have a right to resume their orig­i­nal lib­er­ty, and, by the estab­lish­ment of a new leg­isla­tive, (such as they shall think fit) pro­vide for their own safe­ty and secu­ri­ty, which is the end for which they are in society.
― John Locke, The Sec­ond Trea­tise of Gov­ern­ment, 1689.

Absolute lib­er­ty, just and true lib­er­ty, equal and impar­tial lib­er­ty, is the thing we stand in need of.
― William Pop­ple, trans­la­tor of Lock­e’s A Let­ter Con­cern­ing Tol­er­a­tion from Latin into Eng­lish. [Because of cen­sor­ship and intol­er­ance in his own coun­try, Locke first pub­lished the let­ter in the Nether­lands, at that time the freest land. It was avail­able in Latin, Dutch and French in that coun­try long before it was read in England].

A body of men hold­ing them­selves account­able to nobody, ought not to be trust­ed by anybody.
― Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

Leave a Comment