Ahmed El Hady, Big Think: “In our neuro-centric world-view, a person is equated to his brain. The neuro-discourse has penetrated all aspects of our lives from law to politics to literature to medicine to physics. As part of this neuro-revolution, huge military funding is supporting neuro-scientific research; a huge body of basic knowledge on memory, belief formation, cognition and sensory modalities has been gathered over years, with fields like social neuroscience, cultural neuroscience, neuroeconomics and neuromarketing has been emerging to improve our lifestyle; neurotechnological know-how from wireless non invasive technologies to neuroelectronic interfaces is exponentially advancing; and neurotechnology business reports indicates the rapid increase in neurotechnological start ups and the willingness of bringing neurotechnological products to the market. In my opinion, all the aforementioned indicators indicate that neurotechnology can be potentially used to control social dynamics. At the same time, neuro-technological advancements could nourish our dissidence and creativity – potentially making us more revolutionary.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been funding and actively pursuing research on it. The first project revolves around “narrative networks”. The project aims to detect potential security threats and to protect vulnerable people from being recruited by terrorists through analysis of people narratives in the context of national security. They want to study how story telling indoctrinates people with dangerous ideas and how does propaganda shape your mind. But on the other side, analysis of your narratives on social networks and in your daily life means that your stories and the way it is told can be owned, monitored by the authorities or might also fall into the hand of criminals. Another alarming issue is that your narratives are not anymore private, they are exposed which makes them vulnerable, makes them easy to be shaped by the state authorities. [It also leaves you open to be “rep-programmed. Watch: Bourne Identity films] It can also be used to exclude certain people from the society based on their narratives as it will turn out that one has to conform to some narratives to be included in the society. (See the discussion on DARPA’s project on narrative networks)”
“The Pentagon wants researchers to study how stories infiltrate social networks and alter our brain circuits.” ~ BIG Think
Yes, the US government now wants to get inside your head and are very well on their way in doing so. But what of Canada? How are we participating in new technological directions against terrorism? Our Canadian government have made citizens aware of their intentions to create a similar program since it’s introduction in the contents of the Conservatives Bill C51. The Liberals took over the platform when they gained power and altered the Bill, yet before doing so Public Works under Ralph Goodale tabled the Green Paper Security Consultations and invited Canadians to comment on the various aspects of the Bill that the government was trying to change. Canada’s equivalent program was presented as a “community” lead anti-terrorism initiative that will act similar to an “intervention” program for those who are “deemed at-risk” and identified as potential targets for extreme radicalism to terrorism. I have no doubt that our governments are exchanging information and best practices with DARPA since they have a better budget and more intellectual resources to research and develop the subject. DARPA is asking scientists to “take narratives and make them quantitatively analyzable in a rigorous, transparent and repeatable fashion.” The idea is to detect terrorists who have been indoctrinated by propaganda. Then, the Pentagon can respond with some messages of its own. They don’t have to spend all that money, what they should be doing is taking that same amount of money and improve the social conditions that leads a person to terrorism. No need to get into our heads for that.
“Stories are important in security contexts, change the course of insurgencies, frame negotiations, play a role in political radicalization, influence the methods and goals of violent social movements.”~ DARPA
The program is called “Narrative Networks.” By understanding how stories have shaped your mind, the Pentagon hopes to sniff out who has fallen prey to dangerous ideas… With this knowledge, the military can also target groups vulnerable to terrorists’ recruiting tactics with its own counter-messaging. Big Think continues to explain in an another article, that neuroscience confirms your subconscious and shapes your reality which confirms what Sigmund Freud first theorized. David Eagleman explains:
“Neuroscience has drifted off a little bit from the directions that Freud was going in terms of the interpretations of whether your unconscious mind is sending you particular hidden signals and so on. But the idea that there’s this massive amount happening under the hood, that part was correct and so Freud really nailed that. And he lived before the blossoming of modern neuroscience, so he was able to do this just by outside observation and looking at how people acted.
Nowadays, we’re able to peer non-invasively inside people’s heads as they’re doing tasks, as they’re thinking about things and making decisions, perceiving the world. We’re able to go a lot deeper into understanding this massive machinery under the hood.”
One of the stipulated research goals: to “explore the function narratives serve in the process of political radicalization and how they can influence a person or group’s choice of means (such as indiscriminant violence) to achieve political ends.” Once scientists have perfected the science of how stories affect our neurochemistry, they will develop tools to “detect narrative influence.” These tools will enable “prevention of negative behavioral outcomes … and generation of positive behavioral outcomes, such as building trust.” In other words, the tools will be used to detect who’s been controlled by subversive ideologies, better allowing the military to drown out that message and win people onto their side.
“The government is already trying to control the message, so why not have the science do it in a systematic way?” said the researcher familiar with the project.
When the project enters into a second 18-month phase, it’ll use the research gathered to build “optimized prototype technologies in the form of documents, software, hardware and devices.” What will these be? Existing technology can carry out micro-facial feature analysis, and measure the dilation of blood vessels and eye pupils. MRI machines can determine which parts of your brain is lighting up when it responds to stories.
DARPA wants to do even better.
Identity vs Labels
The development in neuroscience is pointing to a trend in which we all might want to be mindful of since new technologies are developed in which its very task is to invade our minds. To echo what Yuval Harari advising readers that in order to survive in the near future you need to be mentally fit. Depending on how you look at it future development will be quite invasive in an ‘non-invasive’ way, you will need to be mentally strong and fit to survive the next waves of development. The core of that mental fitness and fortitude is having a strong sense of self identity of knowing who you are, where you are going and how you are going to get there. Because things are about to get murky.
And, it all hinges on how you define yourself and who determines that definition: you or someone else.
We all have our own “narratives”, never-mind what DARPA is trying to achieve – but they do have a point that is well articulated. Whether you are conscious of your own narrative or not, these stories run through your head and are on a constant loop as you unconsciously search to find patterns and situations that reinforces these narratives. Fine, if you are happy with your narrative, but most haven’t even taken the time to know what that is and many go through life and not knowing what that is until they find themselves on their deathbed reviewing life’s events.
In “Identity Leadership“, author Stedman Graham captures the key to being a great leader: “Without identity, we allow ourselves to be defined by others. We are put in a box and labeled by race, gender, family circumstances, job title – the list of labels get very long when other people define you. When we are labeled and we accept those labels, we develop a mindset of inequality, which leads to us making poor choices and limiting our own potential and opportunities. The challenge is to get past the labels, to be able to focus on what’s relevant to building our lives, what choices we should be making to achieve success based on our vision for ourselves.
But of course, we can’t have vision, we can’t focus on what’s relevant, if we don’t know who we are. (i.e. knowing your personal story) So again, you see the critical importance of understanding your identity. When we buy into labels, we allow ourselves to be placed in a box, enslaved by what others think of us. The world says to us, “You don’t know who you are. Let me tell you who you are.” The challenge is this: we need to shun the external labels that control our minds, take back our power and control, and define ourselves from the inside out.”
How do we do this?
Your identity is the intersection of your talents and dreams. It’s a process called “self-actualization”. And this process of “self-actualization” reveals your innate, desires, talents and abilities that are intrinsic to you; and when we focus on bring these attributes to the forefront to develop, we begin to start to lead a life of authenticity that is very much rewarding and fulfilling. It’s first about checking your personal ID, where you came from, your personal story, your worldview, your strengths, what makes you tick, knowing your best features and characteristics, defining your passions and then you can begin to create your vision. No need to see what the “Jones” are doing down the street and being jealous of their accomplishments, your life, struggles and rewards are ready to go – IF – you make it YOUR focus. Start by seeing the end and work backwards to where you need to begin. It’ll give you a better perspective so when opportunities start rolling in you’ll be able to measure those opportunities with your vision to see if it all lines up. Set goals, develop a plan of action, stay focused, master the rules of the road and use your time wisely. Leave your comfort zone, over come your fear, welcome and embrace change, learn to let go. And best of all you get to build your ‘dream team’; forge partnerships, learn from your mentors . Self-acutalization gives you a sense of belonging, it’s a journey and as you self actualize you attract those who are compatible with your path – you’re never alone.
Identity Politics or Freedom of Expression“
As a late-comer and an observer of Canadian politics, one couldn’t help but notice that 2015 federal election and consequently various leadership races thereafter and leading up to the 2019 federal election are mostly governed by playing “identity politics”. Using identity politics in an election is a game of Catch 22 and if played well it just might work but more often than not it could backfire and cost you an election or at least votes within your constituency. Remember the whole Burka debate last election? NDP played their card and some political supporters didn’t agree and when they missed opportunities to get back on message and they soon found that they lost votes to the Liberals. That said I understand the attraction using identity politics in a campaign especially for the political Left where equality is a defining feature, it sure does keep people engaged, it’s exciting to watch and makes for great dinner conversation but it is also a distraction from the real issues.
For example in World War II many were blind to what Hitler was actually doing incarcerating the Jews, even the average German citizen had no clue as to what Hitler, a fascist leader was really up to. He entertain the country with his demonology of how the Jew had been the principle architect of the Boshevik Revolution and started the process of dehumanizing them by making them the symbol of everything ‘unclean’ that Germany was pitted against in her righteous war of self defense and purification. In the meantime Hitler kept the Jews in almost total isolation, powerlessness and choicelessness. The Nazis went to staggering lengths to deny the Jews access to knowledge of the true meaning of ‘evacuation to the east.’ despite obsessive secrecy and deceitful jargon surrounding the ‘Final Solution’. they were alarmingly successful in misleading the Jews and in manipulating their expectations and made it a near impossibility for them to establish proper communication with the outside world. Amazingly effecting their narrative was altered “Reduced to a mere number, the man in the concentration camp at the same time lost his identity and his individual destiny. He came to realize that his presence in the camp was due solely to the fact that he was part of a forgotten and condemned collectivity.“ says Elie Wiesel.
In The Politics of Everybody by Holly Lewis, explains that “.. fascism involves the cleansing of bodies, if not their eradication. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that fascist politics acknowledges antagonism. Fascist politics can destroy bodies and claim to be doing so for the good of everybody. All it need do is pronounce that some bodies are nobodies; then it can eradicate the nobodies until everybody is a somebody. In the fascist schema, the nobodies are easy to spot: they’re the ones without an identity, the ones without a home, the ones without a specific place to be– the internationalists, the immigrants, the ‘street’ people, the ones whose land has been stolen, the ones stolen from their lands. the ones who never had a land to begin with, the ones who live in the in-between. The fulcrum of the fascist approach to the political question of everybody is the ecstasy of communal harmony made possible only by expelling foreign bodies.”
Here’s another example, something so simple as hair? How many myths do we encounter about hair that is based on prejudice [or perhaps down right racism] that have lead people to discriminate against one another? Some say dreadlocks are dirty because the myth is to enable it to knot and grow you can’t wash your hair or the nappy afro myth, your hair is unkept because you don’t comb it. Said in a derogatory manner it could easily lead one to believe that anyone who wears these styles are lacking in basic self-care…..Cultural beliefs about hair and its affects can be traced as far back to the days of Samson and Delilah, perhaps even farther. While each culture and belief are distinct, many are strangely similar. Even more familiar are the adversities these same cultures have had to face due to racism, negative stereotyping, domestic violence and assimilation.
In indigenous cultures, hair is a part of their identity. It provides deep meaning and personal connection with one’s hair, health, and spirituality which gives them strength and endurance. Author Steven Bancarz, the creator of Spirit Science and Metaphysics, informs his readers about the native hair, “In Native cultures, men and women are recognized by the length and glory of their hair. The cutting of hair by oppressors has long represented the submission and defeat of a People, through humiliation. The way a People comb (the Alignment of thought), braid (the Oneness of thought), tie (the Securing of thought) and color (the Conviction in thought), their Hair is of great significance. Each hairstyle represents a different frame of mind.” So it is only natural for those who are in the business of enslaving and “de-personalizing” an individual to cut their hair as it is often recognized as a sign of slavery and used as a method to steal their power; to decrease, demoralize and punish those enslaved.
As an African-Caribbean Canadian born, heterosexual, baptized Christian woman who follows a humanistic philosophy through the lens of feminism, I’m writing from a perspective of also having experienced forms of prejudices, racism, stereotyping and discrimination. I’ve had dreadlocks, gone bald, afro and straightened my hair. For as many hairstyles I have had I have also had many names. It’s just the nature of my name that has so many variations that require a different identity; Susan, Suzanne, Susannah, Suzannah, Zuzana, Shoshona (Jewish version of the name) Susana, Sue, Su, Suzie, Suzy, Susie, Siouxsie and the list goes on and on. Some sounds french, others sounds business like, one sounds like a tomboy, and still another sounds seductress, or a snob, or just plain “I’ll kick your ass!” confident. I made the mistake of playing with these variations, when I finally settled on the name the I liked – my identity got stolen with all sorts of non-realities forced upon me and behind my back with no way of presenting the correct narrative. It’s like being in jail and while in there the media does all sorts creative storytelling, runs your name through the mud, slinging it about and when you’re finally out you haven’t a clue what had happen [but something did happen] and as a result you’re not even sure if you want to claim your name.
And this is what I like about Identity Leadership, because it is not about your name, your hair or any of the externals – it’s who you are on the inside and that goes with you where ever you are no matter how or what you choose to call yourself or what other may say or how you look. Those are just way is why you choose to express externally how you feel and who you are internally, therefore while the external may change but your true identity is internal and intrinsically remains the same – not stagnant, the same – because we all grow and evolve with each life’s experience.
“Self-leadership is a most critical aspect of identity leadership. Simply put, if you want to lead others, you have to learn how to lead yourself first.” ~ Stedman Graham
To be a true identity leader you need to know what your narrative says about yourself. And in creating your vision, these are the first and foremost three questions to ask yourself [and answer]: Who am I? Where am I? How am I going to get there?
The opportunities opening up in the twenty-first century will not be snatched up by followers. The world will not be improved by followers. It is leaders who will meet those needs, seize those opportunities and change the world. Identity leadership is the highest order of leadership. Its’s a different kind of leadership that is required in the 21st century found in people who are aware of their own intentions and identity, who responsibly lead themselves to overcome obstacles in their own lives and, as a result, lead others to succeed. Without a strong identity, we are more likely to be carried by the influence of our environment into a future requiring very little reflection or development. True leaders aren’t looking to posture; true leaders are looking to make a difference and to fulfill their mission in life.
The world is calling for leaders. But to best answer that call, one needs to bring identity into the picture – not identity politics. That’s one of the reasons that companies are saying leadership is in a critical state – too many people are focused on trying to develop leadership skills without coupling those skills with a deep and robust understanding of their identity. It’s the marriage of identity and leadership that sets one apart as a twenty-first-century leader.
Stedman Graham quotes United States Military Academy at West Point in 2009, author and essayist William Deresiewicz put it bluntly:
“We have a crisis of leadership in this country, in every institution….What we have now are…people who have been trained to be incredibly good at one specific thing, but who have no interest in anything beyond their area of expertise. What we don’t have are leaders…People who can think for themselves. People who can formulate a new direction: for the country, for a corporation or a college, for the Army – a new way of doing things, a new way of looking at things. People, in other words, with vision.“
The world is crying out for more self-leaders, more “identity” leaders. It’s this type of leadership that is both lasting and impactful. It’s this type of leadership that changes lives – yours and those of the people in your sphere of influence. It’s this type of leadership from which legacies are made.
In it’s 2014 Global Human Capital Trends Survey, Deloitte found that leadership remains the top human capital concern – and presents the largest “readiness gap” in the survey. The survey uncovered a deep need to develop new leaders faster and to globalize leadership programs. Eighty-sex percent of respondents in the survey cited the leadership issue as “urgent” or “important.” the report stated that twenty-first-century leadership is different, and that a shortage of leaders is one of the biggest impediments to growth. The survey also found that companies face challenges in developing millennial and multiple generations of leaders in meeting the growing demand for leaders with global fluency and flexibility. The survey noted additional challenges in identifying leaders who can innovate and inspire others to perform, and who can understand the rapidly changing technologies and resulting new disciplines and fields.
The need for leadership will never go away. The premium on leadership will never be devalued, because leadership is the heartbeat of any company or organization [or government]. Every strong company [or government] has a strong leader and leadership team at the helm. Every one. And every company is looking to develop new and strong leadership, men and women who are capable of leading them in the next generation of their business. Companies are looking for people with vision and foresight and the complex leadership skills to take the company to the next level, maneuver successfully in the market place, and create growth and stability.
And what of governments?
Governments are looking for that same leadership whether it’s a civil servant running a governmental department, a City Councillor trying to improve his/her district, a Mayor leading their city into 21st century changes, an MPP seeking to improve services for their province, an MP looking after a portfolio even the Prime Minister him/herself – we need new types and styles of leaders. With a federal election coming up in Canada in October, we would be wise to assess each candidate in their ability to innovate, that has vision, foresight and (hopefully) a track record of producing rather than promising and abandoning. We need leaders who are committed in making ever-lasting changes that will bring about health and prosperity to our country and ultimately through their behavior influence other world leaders to do the same for their respective countries. With our present selection of candidates, are we finding those qualities shining through in their speeches and platforms? Have they historically demonstrated that they are capable in following through? For every voter I think it would be wise to review and assess your understanding of what you think would make a good leader which in turn will enable you to make that vital selection come October 21st – election day.
We have about another decade in which to prepare for the oncoming global emergency and we have a few crisis we’re simultaneously passifying monetary crisis, environmental crisis, political and health crisis and when one finally burst through we need our identity leaders who could lead us, help humanity ’emerge’ from the ’emergency’, to bring forth the new ways for living. Self identified leaders are the only type of leader that can successfully lead us through the challenges that are laid out before us. Too many people are focused on trying to develop leadership skills without coupling those skills with a deep and robust understand of their identity. The world needs self-leaders now more than ever. It’s from the self-leaders that the world gets its innovative ideas and creative solutions. Self-leaders aren’t swayed by public opinions and live lives of authenticity in their own realities. They lead from who they are, which is the only way to successfully lead. And that style of leadership makes them stand out in a crowd of leaders.
2019 Global Human Capital Trends Survey, Deloitte found that “After nearly 10 years of economic growth, and despite a pervasive corporate focus on digital transformation, 84 percent of respondents told us they need to rethink their workforce experience to improve productivity. And in the face of new pressures to move faster and adapt to a far more diverse workforce, 80 percent believe they need to develop leaders differently…..This year, we believe the pressures that have driven the rise of the social enterprise have become even more acute. They are forcing organizations to move beyond mission statements and philanthropy to learn to lead the social enterprise—and reinvent themselves around a human focus.” And when you think of your government(s) you would hope to see shift to reinvent their leadership around around a human focus. Jacinda Arden, is a leading example with her wellness budget, a budget that requires a new way of making decisions. Zuzana Caputova seeking to use the full force of the judicial courts that are under the supervision of the Prime Minister, empowering their efforts to rid themselves of the mafia and organized crime that influence political life and political decision makings of previous leaders. Speaking up when meeting with authoritarian governments plainly stating where she is in disagreement with aspects of their leadership while reaffirming a democratic approach to solving problem and forging new agreements.
Have you often wondered why do we have such poor quality of leaders to choose from? Why do ordinary people vote to return to office undemocratic incumbents? If we don’t like a leader we have the power to vote them out of office yet despite knowing the poor decision making and corrupt actions, citizens keep these leaders empowered. Why?
This is especially something we voters would like to think about with this coming election as I sense an unusually high level of voter’s apathy among the choice of leaders presented. In the United States I fear the same, Trump will be voted in for a second run….perhaps. Surveys, by political theorist Milan W. Svolik, suggests that many voters are willing to put their partisan interest above democratic principles – a finding that may be key to understanding democratic backsliding. Democratic breakdowns almost always come in one of two very different forms; executive takeovers and military coups. i wrote about this in an earlier blog about the end of democracy and it surely would if we voters give in to our apathy and not demand better leaders to guides through the next extremely and crucial ten years. If we’re not happy ‘go back to the drawing board and find an appropriate leader – delay the elections until you do.’ We have no time for wishy-washy politics.
Here’s some prominent recent takeovers that include the subversion of democracy by Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, by Vladimir Putin in Russia and by Recept Tayyip Erodgan in Turkey. The second category of democratic breakdown, the military coup, accounts for 46 cases. The remaining downgrades correspond either to instances of deliberalization in regimes where the executive was not elected int he first place 1(15 cases) or to phenomena best characterized not as democratic breakdowns but rather as the deterioration of state authority due to political instability (21 cases) or escalating civil conflict (14 cases). After the 1990sm however, the relative frequency of executive takeover surged, and they have accounted for four out of every five democratic breakdowns since 2000. And what about Canada? 2015 elections saw the people oust a Prime Minister with whom they thought had ‘his day in office” and we voted in a newbie. However, during the past couple of years does anyone see aspects of an executive takeover happening before our very eyes?
Question, what really happened to Tom Mulcair during the 2015 party convention? He was a good runner up to challenge Trudeau. What really happened to Maxime Bernier in the Conservative leadership race? He was number 1 almost up to the 12 round or so? And who the heck is Andrew Scheer? Where did he come from to win on the 13th ballot? Who ever it was that made the decision, wanted a “family man” with conservative and ‘church principles’ leading the party – not a ‘singular’ [divorcee] couple -that’s why Bernier lost. What really happened with Electoral Reform? and why do we have a marijuana law and not electoral reform? Not only do we need good leaders, we also need a good system to choose the leader who will guide us into the next 10 years of very serious decision-making. How did Jagmeet a very late comer who expressed absolutely no interest to run federally, extremely successful in his position in provincial politics win the leadership race? And why did the military incumbent during the NDP leadership race drop out and did anyone hear his parting words? Why did most of the NDP seniors resign? Who’s the “mystery” person that alerted the press about SNC Lavalin? Who’s the other “mystery” person who alerted the press about the dispute between Trudeau and JWR about the supreme court judge selection process? What happened to Bill C51 and its changes? What really happened to Barry Sherman and his wife? He’s known to meddle in politics a little too much. What recent changes occurred in the Pharmacy Act and how does that affect our ability to compete with patents? Did we have a proper discourse about it? Voters need to remember and ask these questions – this coming election; be curious and ask questions.
Can Zuzanna Caputova Save Slovakia?
As mentioned earlier, this is exactly what happened with Slovakia’s new president, Zuzana Čaputová, with a young and highly inexperienced team, low name recognition, and polls pegging her backing at only 9 percent, was a long shot in Slovakia’s presidential election. She was once called the “unknown” girl by the speaker of the National Council. Since her win many observers also see her as a rising star of Central European politics, one who is willing and able to confront right-wing alpha males such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban.
Citizens were upset about the corruption in government, the killing of a journalist who tried to report the story, they wanted someone principled and willing to go the extra mile for civility and honest governing. Zuzana’s 14 year struggle against the situating of a toxic landfill in her hometown of Pezinok. She was up against the very person who ordered the “hit” on the journalist and won. During her legal fight she met and had to deal with many characters from the opposition. Some fought directly against her and I’m sure no doubt some tried to buy her off or tired to tempt her into crossing over to the other side. For her dedication and tenacity, Čaputová was awarded the 2016 Goldman Environmental Prize.
In Slovakia, the president can also shape the country’s currently vulnerable judicial system, with the ability to appoint judges to the Constitutional Court as well as the judicial council. This is a role Zuzana has expressly mentioned that she will use her state power to the fullest to bring about necessary change for her people. “We only have four judges [serving in the Constitutional Court] and we need nine more elected, and Slovakia is waiting for a new president to choose those judges,” said Martin Poliacik, a member of the liberal Progressive Slovakia party, of which Caputova is deputy head. He hopes that her success could lead to a further backlash against the tide of populism that has swept much of Europe in recent years. “I think the outcome of these elections will show us how much Slovakia is crying for a change, and not only internally, but for regional civilisation,” he said.
“She would give hope to those other countries as well.”
New Zealand’s Jacinda Arden also gives new hope, demonstrating her ability to go outside-the-box as we saw with her tabling the country’s budget for well-being and in her quick response to the act of terrorism by banning guns and creating gun legislation. Electoral competitions often confronts voters with a choice between two valid but potentially conflicting concerns; democratic principles and party interests. The likes of Chavez (Venezuela), Orban (Hungry), and Erodgan (Turkey) excel at exploiting precisely this dilemma. These incumbents ask their supporters to trade off democratic principles for partisan interests, these are primarily about allegiance to a party or a leader they refer to voters’ interest in specific economic and social policies. Recent history shows that supporters, unfortunately, would rather tolerate their authoritarian tendencies than back politicians whose platforms these supporters abhor. Then when it is time to punish a leader for his authoritarian tendencies, and it requires voting for a platform of a party or a person that his supporters detest, many will find this too high of a price to pay. They keep their allegiance to the party despite not liking the leader and it is this way of thinking that continues to undermine democracy and that’s how these authoritarian leaders get away with their bad behavior. We’re seeing it today in Canadian politics, however, there’s glimmers of hope in that many who are dissatisfied with the choices presented are willing to take a break from their party to give more power to the Greens.
We have a bit of time folks. Think about it.
October 21st is election time – a time to get Canada back on track.