The tendency of history to repeat herself, as so often claimed since Karl Marx' tiresome rather than precocious, but notwithstanding memorable observation that Louis-Napoleon's seizure of power was something very different to his uncle's both in its merits, conduct, grandeur and all else except mayhaps for its eventual conclusion, so almost as to be absurd.
Yes, history does repeat itself often enough that I need not repeat the rest, and the pup once praised by Nixon (a seldom-broadcasted factoid) and bestowed a teddy bear (invoking one of the better if, arguably, not the most constitutionally minded of his party forbearers) by the soon-disgraced attempt at an autocrat has grown into a man or - invoking the words of the Lord of Horn Hill - something resembling one at least. And if Marx had lived, as he does for so many - if hardly for young Justin - what would his remarks have been - apart from the usual analyses ending in the one precocious (?) statement of "capitalism" and "decay"? Neither him, nor his belligerent scion Lenin would be likely to offer support.
Most interestingly, and very symptomatic for its time, the tendency is to blame these critics of authoritarianism and repression in defence of a market-governed state as "fascism" and so forth, a tendency echoed to accepted to mildly eschewed across the broader recognised left. Indeed,
The action itself, a rebuke of the federal government's policy of lockdown, particularly (but not most grievously) offsetting the truck drivers vital to the Canadian economy; more so than other groups less vilified, better cared for, at any rate.
Now, let us - in the name of giving Godwin's law, in all its incarnations, a good kicking - say it out loud: This puerile son is not the rock that was the father - and the causes that forged Pierre's good speech are not those of the unfettered, prejudiced condemnation and Ceausescian oral defecation ex podio spouted like diarrhoea over the Canadian public, fittingly from a remote, even undisclosed location freed from white, softening walls. The statesman selecting not to confront "his" people, but behaving
When the tanks rolled into Montreal, and hundreds of figures whose support for the terrorist FLQ extended to that of the (and I'm being generous to Ottawa on that account) in a move which could not have been as obviated and expunged had it occurred south of the border,
Now, for so worse reasons, we see the same currency peddled by the same blood - if worse in every regard. Whereas Pierre Trudeau may have enjoyed significant support, and maintained power (but for the brief, almost strategically engineered interregnum of Joe Clark) for nearly one and a half decade afterwards, in elections where his opponents to left and right were given the opportunity to bash that face and act of statesmanship with this sledgehammer, and nevertheless saw re-election in polls that have hardly been called out as unfair, and where and when memory of the government's response remained strong. Never was there an attempt , let alone to call out the NDP or Progressive Conservatives out as fascists for opposing his, ostensibly, fascist policy aimed very really at quelling the independence movement - and arguably successfully, with the 1990s plebiscite as the last gasping attempt by the Quebecois.
Now, worse for worse reasons , . This style does indeed not limit itself to the perilous questions of viral pandemics, reasonable efforts to restrict , and the "need" of a particular protest particularly aiming itself at the administation's policies (arguably, the most ). Indeed, in the last two elections, Justin has maintained himself in spite of the Tories taking a majority of the votes.
So, how did we get here?
The decision to cancel bank accounts - not to individuals engaged in supposed rioting, with a mind to preventing their current efforts, mind you - but against financial supporters, evoking the debate regarding
