You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Politics’ category.
The word “woke” has been buzzing around for years, popping up in political debates, social media threads, and even casual conversations. But what does it really mean? Depending on who you ask, you might get wildly different answers. As someone curious about the term, I decided to explore three perspectives: one from a critic, one from a supporter, and one for those who might not care much about the whole debate.
Perspective 1: The Critic’s Take (James Lindsay’s Definition)
James Lindsay, a vocal anti-Communist thinker, offers a definition that digs into the intellectual roots of “woke.” In a recent X post (June 13, 2025), he describes it not as a set of fixed beliefs but as a “critically conscious way of seeing the world.” For Lindsay, being woke means believing that society is fundamentally organized around a hidden dynamic of oppression and alienation, splitting people into two classes: the privileged oppressors and the marginalized oppressed. He argues this view requires you to “wake up” (almost like a born-again experience) to see this reality, which the powerful have cleverly concealed.
Lindsay ties this to historical ideas, like Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968), where education becomes a tool to liberate the downtrodden. It’s a provocative take, suggesting woke is less about specific policies and more about a method of thinking. But it’s also controversial—there’s no hard data proving a universal oppression structure, and some say it oversimplifies complex social dynamics. Still, it’s a useful lens if you’re trying to understand the philosophy behind the term.
Perspective 2: The Woke Perspective
Now, let’s hear from those who embrace the label. From a “woke” viewpoint—drawing from voices like those in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and equity experts—being woke is about awareness and action. It starts with recognizing that systemic injustices, like racism, sexism, and economic inequality, are baked into society’s foundations, often dating back centuries. This perspective, rooted in the African American Vernacular English use of “woke” (meaning staying alert to injustice since the early 20th century), sees it as a call to stay educated and engaged.
For example, a woke advocate might point to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests or efforts to diversify curricula as evidence of this consciousness in action. It’s not just about seeing problems but working to fix them—think policies on equitable hiring or inclusive education. Critics might call it idealistic, but supporters argue it’s essential for progress, especially when data like the 2023 U.S. Census showing persistent racial wealth gaps (e.g., Black households at $44,900 median wealth vs. $285,000 for white households) backs up the systemic lens.
Perspective 3: The Casual Observer’s View
Not everyone’s deep into this debate, and that’s okay! For the average person who’s not engaged—maybe you’ve heard “woke” on the news or in a meme but don’t follow the ideology wars—it’s simpler. To them, “woke” often just means being on the progressive side of social issues. It’s the stuff you see on TV: support for LGBTQ+ rights, climate action, or calls to “cancel” problematic figures. A 2022 Pew Research survey found 58% of U.S. adults link it to left-leaning politics, not a grand theory of society.
This version doesn’t care about hidden oppression dynamics or critical methods—it’s more about a vibe. You might hear someone say, “Oh, that’s so woke,” meaning it’s trendy or socially aware, like a brand launching a sustainability campaign. It’s less a worldview and more a cultural marker, which makes it accessible but also vague for those not in the thick of it.
So, Which Definition Wins?
There’s no single “right” answer—each reflects a different lens. Lindsay’s version is great for dissecting the intellectual side, the woke perspective shines if you’re passionate about justice, and the casual take works if you just want to keep up with the chatter. Personally, I think they all have a piece of the puzzle. “Woke” seems to be a shape-shifter, shaped by who’s using it and why.
The illogical nature of a centrally planned economy.
Karl Marx envisioned a socialist system where the state abolishes capitalism, seizing the means of production to allocate resources according to collective needs. In this framework, central planners would determine what goods to produce, theoretically eliminating the profit motive and class disparities. Marx’s theory assumed that a planned economy could efficiently coordinate production and distribution without the market mechanisms inherent in capitalism.
Ludwig von Mises, in his groundbreaking 1920 essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, challenged this vision by exposing a fundamental flaw: the absence of market prices renders rational economic planning impossible. Mises argued that prices, generated through supply and demand in a free market, convey critical information about scarcity, consumer preferences, and production costs. Without these prices, central planners lack a mechanism to assess the relative value of resources or to make informed decisions about what to produce, in what quantities, or at what cost. For example, without price signals, planners cannot determine whether steel is better allocated to building bridges or manufacturing tools, leading to inefficiency and waste.
Mises’ critique directly refutes Marx’s socialist framework by demonstrating that the absence of market prices dismantles the logic of economic coordination. He did not argue that socialism was immoral but that it was impractical, as it lacked a functional method for economic calculation. Without prices to guide resource allocation, a socialist economy cannot rationally prioritize production or evaluate trade-offs, resulting in chaos rather than a coherent economy. Mises’ insight underscores the indispensability of market mechanisms, positioning capitalism as a logical necessity for economic order.
Central planning too limited.
Karl Marx’s vision of socialism relied on central planners to orchestrate production and distribution, assuming they could gather and process the necessary information to meet societal needs. In Marx’s framework, a centralized authority would replace the decentralized market, directing resources to eliminate inefficiencies and inequities inherent in capitalism. This approach presumed that planners could acquire comprehensive knowledge of economic conditions to allocate resources effectively.
F.A. Hayek, in his seminal works such as The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945), refuted this by arguing that no central planner could possibly possess the dispersed, tacit knowledge held by individuals across society. Hayek emphasized that prices in a market economy are not mere numbers but dynamic signals that aggregate and communicate localized information about needs, preferences, and resource scarcities. For instance, a rising price for lumber signals increased demand or limited supply, prompting producers and consumers to adjust without any single authority needing to understand the full context of every transaction.
Hayek’s insight directly challenges Marx’s centralized model by demonstrating that the spontaneous coordination enabled by market prices surpasses the capabilities of any planner, expert, or algorithm. Prices encapsulate fragmented knowledge—such as a farmer’s awareness of crop yields or a manufacturer’s grasp of production costs—that no central authority could fully replicate. By enabling individuals to act on this dispersed information, markets achieve efficient resource allocation without requiring a comprehensive plan, rendering Marx’s vision of centralized control not only impractical but fundamentally incapable of matching the adaptive complexity of a price-driven economy.
In recent years, we’ve seen protests that aren’t just peaceful marches but also aren’t as extreme as riots or wars. These actions are often called “mid-level violence.” Groups like activists and Antifa—a loosely organized movement against fascism—use them to fight what they see as unfair systems or dangerous ideas. This primer will explain what mid-level violence is, how it works, and why it can be both helpful and tricky.
What Is Mid-Level Violence and How Is It Used?
Mid-level violence is more intense than peaceful protests but less destructive than full-scale chaos. Think of actions like breaking windows, clashing with opponents in the street, or disrupting events. These groups use it to show they’re serious about their cause, whether it’s stopping oppression or challenging authority.
To make it work, they use specific tactics:
- Black umbrellas: Protesters hold these up to hide their faces from cameras, so police can’t easily identify them.
- Noisemakers: Loud horns or drums create confusion, overwhelming police or opponents.
- Filming confrontations: They record everything with their phones, especially if police or others react in a way that looks bad, to share their side of the story.
These tools help them push their message and protect themselves while doing it.
Why Does It Work Best With a Low-Information Audience?
These tactics are most effective when people don’t know the full story. Imagine you see a short video online of police pushing protesters. It might make you think the police are wrong—unless you saw what happened earlier, like protesters throwing things. This is called a “low-information audience”—people who only get a small piece of the puzzle.
Social media makes this even stronger. Videos spread fast, and people react before digging deeper. A clip that looks dramatic can get tons of attention, shaping opinions without showing the whole picture.
What Are the Risks?
While mid-level violence can grab attention and rally support, it has downsides. It can scare off people who aren’t sure where they stand—sometimes called “moderates.” If all they see is chaos, they might turn away from the cause. It can also make society more divided, as groups stop talking and start fighting instead. So, while it’s a powerful tool, it can backfire and make things harder to fix.
Why Understanding This Matters
Knowing how mid-level violence works helps us make sense of today’s protests. It reminds us to look past quick videos and find the full story. By doing that, we can figure out what’s really going on and work toward solutions that bring people together, not push them apart.
Introduction
Canada’s provincial and national parks are cherished public assets, symbolizing the nation’s commitment to preserving its natural heritage and fostering a shared sense of identity among its citizens. These spaces, funded by taxpayers and managed for the public good, serve as venues for recreation, education, and connection with the natural environment. However, in 2025, temporary closures of prominent British Columbia (BC) parks, such as Joffre Lakes Provincial Park and Botanical Beach in Juan de Fuca Park, have ignited significant controversy. These closures, primarily initiated by First Nations to facilitate cultural practices, environmental recovery, and reconciliation efforts, restrict access predominantly to non-Indigenous visitors. While the objectives of these closures—cultural preservation, environmental protection, and reconciliation—are undeniably important, this essay argues that restricting park access based on group identity is a divisive practice that does not benefit all Canadians. Canada’s parks are intended for all citizens, not solely for particular groups. By presenting the strongest arguments in favor of these closures and subsequently refuting them, this essay advocates for supererogatory and unifying policies that respect Indigenous rights while ensuring equitable access for all Canadians.
Steel Manning the Case for Park Closures
The rationale for the temporary closures of BC parks is grounded in compelling cultural, environmental, and reconciliatory imperatives. First, these closures enable First Nations to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to reconnect with their traditional territories through cultural and spiritual practices. For instance, at Joffre Lakes Park, the Lil’wat and N’Quatqua First Nations have established “Reconnection Periods” to engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, harvesting medicines, and spiritual ceremonies, which require privacy and exclusivity (CityNews). Second, the closures address significant environmental degradation caused by a surge in park visitors. Joffre Lakes experienced a 222% increase in annual visitors from 2010 to 2019, reaching nearly 200,000, resulting in trampled vegetation, litter, and trail congestion (The Narwhal). Temporary restrictions allow the land to recover, ensuring its sustainability for future generations. Third, these closures align with broader reconciliation efforts under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), recognizing historical injustices and supporting Indigenous stewardship of their ancestral lands (BC Gov News). Collectively, these arguments present a robust case for the closures, emphasizing legal obligations, ecological necessity, and moral imperatives.
Refuting the Case for Closures
Despite the strength of these arguments, the approach of restricting park access based on group identity is fundamentally flawed and divisive. Canada’s parks are public spaces, established and maintained for the benefit of all citizens, regardless of background. Restricting access to non-Indigenous visitors creates a perception of inequality, where certain groups are prioritized over others, fostering resentment and undermining social cohesion. The closure of Joffre Lakes for over 100 days in 2025, including peak seasons, denies many Canadians the opportunity to experience this iconic destination, impacting not only individual enjoyment but also local economies reliant on tourism (CityNews). Critics argue that such policies set a troubling precedent, potentially allowing widespread restrictions across BC’s public lands, given that most of the province is claimed by Indigenous groups (National Post). Moreover, the environmental rationale, while valid, can be addressed through less exclusionary measures. For instance, implementing visitor quotas, reservation systems, or enhanced trail management could mitigate ecological impacts without barring non-Indigenous visitors entirely. Similarly, cultural practices could be accommodated by designating specific areas or times for exclusive use, rather than closing entire parks. These alternatives would achieve the same objectives—cultural preservation and environmental protection—while upholding the principle that parks are for all Canadians.
Advocating for Supererogatory and Unifying Policies
Rather than resorting to divisive measures, Canada should pursue supererogatory and unifying policies that go beyond legal obligations to promote inclusivity and national unity. Supererogatory policies, which exceed minimum requirements to promote goodwill, can bridge divides and create a shared sense of stewardship over public spaces. For example, parks could establish collaborative management frameworks involving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders to ensure that cultural, environmental, and public access needs are balanced. Such models have been successfully implemented in other contexts, such as co-management agreements in national parks (Parks Canada). Additionally, parks could designate specific zones or time periods for cultural activities, allowing First Nations to practice their traditions without excluding others. Educational programs could also be introduced to inform visitors about Indigenous heritage, fostering mutual respect and understanding. These approaches would not only respect Indigenous rights but also reinforce the idea that Canada’s parks are a shared heritage, accessible to all citizens. By prioritizing inclusivity, such policies would strengthen social cohesion and mitigate the tensions exacerbated by exclusionary closures.
Addressing Broader Implications
The controversy surrounding BC park closures reflects broader challenges in balancing Indigenous rights with public access in a diverse nation. Critics of the closures, such as those cited in the National Post, argue that decisions made by small Indigenous governments without a democratic relationship to the broader population undermine public interest (National Post). This perception is amplified by public backlash, with some labeling the closures as “apartheid, Canadian-style” on platforms like X (Daily Mail). While such rhetoric is inflammatory, it underscores the need for transparent and inclusive decision-making processes. Conversely, supporters emphasize that these closures are a necessary step toward reconciliation, given the historical dispossession of Indigenous lands (The Narwhal). To navigate these tensions, Canada must adopt policies that acknowledge both the unique rights of Indigenous peoples and the collective rights of all citizens to access public spaces. Failure to do so risks deepening divisions and eroding the unifying potential of Canada’s parks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the temporary closures of BC parks like Joffre Lakes and Botanical Beach are driven by important cultural, environmental, and reconciliatory goals, their exclusionary nature is divisive and does not serve the best interests of all Canadians. Canada’s parks are public assets, intended to unite citizens through shared access to natural beauty and heritage. By restricting access based on group identity, these closures create inequality and foster resentment, undermining national unity. Instead, Canada should embrace supererogatory and inclusive policies that respect Indigenous rights while ensuring equitable access for all. Collaborative management, designated cultural zones, and enhanced visitor management offer viable alternatives that balance competing interests without exclusion. By prioritizing unity and inclusivity, Canada can uphold its commitment to both reconciliation and the principle that its parks are for every citizen.
Key Details of Park Closures
| Park Name | First Nations Involved | Closure Periods (2025) | Reasons for Closure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joffre Lakes Provincial Park | Lil’wat and N’Quatqua | April 25–May 16, June 13–27, Aug 22–Oct 23 (over 100 days total) | Cultural practices (hunting, fishing, spiritual activities), environmental recovery |
| Juan de Fuca Park (Botanical Beach) | Pacheedaht | 24 hours over May 24 weekend | Harvest marine resources, cultural reconnection |
| Gulf Islands National Park Reserve | Not specified | Indefinite from April 15 | Protect natural and cultural resources |
| Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (Willis Island) | Not specified | Entire 2025 season | Management, cultural purposes, safety, infrastructure repairs |
References
- CityNews. (2025). Joffre Lakes Park to close again for First Nations reconnection. Retrieved from https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2025/05/26/joffre-lakes-closures-to-continue/
- The Narwhal. (2025). Why are First Nations closing B.C. parks? Retrieved from https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-parks-first-nations-closures-racism/
- National Post. (2025). Non-Indigenous visitors being turned away from B.C. public parks. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/non-indigenous-visitors-being-turned-away-from-b-c-public-parks
- National Post. (2025). Closures of B.C. parks to non-Indigenous visitors a sign of what’s to come. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/closures-of-b-c-parks-to-non-indigenous-visitors-a-sign-of-things-to-come
- @NVanCaroline. (2025). X Post on Joffre Lakes closures. Retrieved from https://x.com/NVanCaroline/status/1926677179217089001
- BC Gov News. (2025). B.C. supports land stewardship at Pipi7íyekw/Joffre Lakes Park. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2025ENV0016-000364
- Daily Mail. (2025). Canada blocking millions from parks over ‘apartheid’ scheme. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14757639/outrage-canada-beauty-spots-closed-natives-reconnect-land.html
- Parks Canada. (n.d.). Official website. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada.html
An Alternate Theory Worker Exploitation under Capitalism.
Karl Marx argued that capitalists exploit workers by appropriating the surplus value generated by labor, framing profit as the result of systemic theft within the production process. In Marx’s view, capitalists accumulate wealth by paying workers less than the value their labor produces, perpetuating class conflict and portraying profit as inherently unjust. This perspective casts capitalists as parasitic, extracting wealth without contributing equivalent value to the economic system.
Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, a prominent Austrian economist, countered this narrative with his theory of time preference, articulated in works like Capital and Interest (1884). He posited that individuals naturally prefer present goods over future goods, meaning workers value immediate wages over delayed returns. Capitalists, by contrast, provide those wages upfront, investing capital and bearing the uncertainty of future profits. This exchange is not exploitative but a mutually beneficial arrangement where workers receive immediate income, while capitalists assume the risk and delay gratification, hoping their investments yield returns over time.
Böhm-Bawerk’s framework refutes Marx by redefining profit as compensation for time, risk, and strategic planning, rather than exploitation. Capitalists undertake the burden of forgoing present consumption, managing resources, and navigating market uncertainties. Their profit, when realized, reflects the value of their foresight and willingness to wait, not the theft of labor’s output. This perspective shifts the economic narrative from class struggle to a cooperative process where both workers and capitalists fulfill distinct, voluntary roles based on their preferences and economic realities.
Marx’s Theory of Value Refuted.
Karl Marx posited that the value of a commodity is derived from the labor expended in its production, anchoring value in the objective measure of labor time. This labor theory of value underpinned Marx’s economic framework, tying value to the collective effort of workers and framing economic systems as driven by class dynamics and exploitation. Marx’s perspective suggested that the intrinsic worth of goods is measurable through the labor they embody, irrespective of individual perceptions or desires.
In contrast, Carl Menger, a founder of the Austrian School, argued in his seminal work, Principles of Economics (1871), that value originates from individual subjective preferences, not labor. Menger’s theory of subjective value asserts that the worth of a good is determined by the utility it provides to an individual, which varies based on personal needs, circumstances, and scarcity. For instance, a violin holds immense value to a musician who cherishes its utility, yet it may be worthless to someone indifferent to music. Similarly, food is far more valuable to a starving person than to someone satiated, illustrating that value is not fixed but contingent on human desires and context.
Menger’s emphasis on subjective valuation directly refutes Marx’s labor-centric model by demonstrating that labor alone does not dictate a good’s worth. Instead, value emerges from the interplay of individual needs and the marginal utility of goods—how much additional satisfaction a person gains from consuming one more unit. This insight shifts the focus from collective labor to individual choice, undermining Marx’s framework by highlighting that economic value is a dynamic, human-driven phenomenon, shaped by personal priorities rather than an objective labor metric.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…