In chapter one, we saw the young hero climb the political ladder and confront the ogre in his cloud fortress. After he was killed, the jinn mysteriously disappeared from sight, as often happens in storybooks. Meanwhile, Justin and his band looked at the mess the giant left behind. 

Whew! Piles of unspent cash, papers strewn on the floor, edicts cancelling scientific research and slashing funds to Canadians helping Palestinian refugees, laws abetting toxic oilsands production. A picture of world leaders who signed the Kyoto environmental protocol lay smashed on the floor.

The band's first decision was to stop bombing natives in Syria and Yemen, to pull Canadian forces from Iraq, to pledge a renewed tradition of Canada as a peacemaker and friend. Justin's choice for foreign minister, the shy intellectual Stephan Dion, himself had fought the ogre as leader of the Liberals from 2006 to 2008. But he had been surrounded by timeseekers and was pilloried mercilessly by the media. Just too nice. As a result, the NDP was able to profit from the Liberals' disarray, and under their own tragic hero, Jack Layton―on his death bed―beat out the Liberals in 2011. The jockeying of the insurgent rivals let the ogre run riot and increase his havoc, to the horror of the helpless people.

Canada has just lived through a fairytale decade, complete with evil jinn and youthful hero. Think of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” starring youthful naif, Justin Trudeau, and the giant raining evil down on Canadaland from the clouds, Stephen Harper. Justin bravely climbs the slippery, perilous political ladder to fight the giant… and wins against all odds, saving his humble home from the jinn.

Canada’s prime minister for the past nine years, Stephen Harper, led a charmed life until the October 19 federal election. Despite never garnering more than 39% of the vote (in the earlier minority parliaments he had only 34%), his rule was more like that of a dictator, with policies that increasingly alarmed his followers until his support fell to 30% and united the rest of voters against him, giving the Liberals a sweeping majority.

For pro-Israeli, pro-war, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-culture types, he was perfect. But for people concerned about human rights, the environment, promoting the arts and maintaining Canada’s reputation as a nation that promotes world peace, a haven for scientific development, he has been the worst prime minister in history.

Canada’s prime minister for the past nine years, Stephen Harper, led a charmed life until the October 19 federal election. Canada’s first-past-the-post elector system, where three parties—two left-liberal and one conservative—have split the vote election after election, allowed him to hold power with a third of the popular vote.

The traditional source of political power in Canada is the Liberal Party, but they lost power after a string of scandals and weak leadership a decade ago, and Harper, having captured the traditionally moderate “Progressive Conservatives” and inserted his radical rightwing followers, used the electoral split to pursue a divisive, unjust agenda.

For pro-Israeli, pro-war, anti-environment, anti-science, anti-culture types, he was perfect. But for people concerned about human rights, the environment, promoting the arts and maintaining Canada’s reputation as a nation that promotes world peace, and is a haven for scientific development, he has been the worst prime minister in history. 

Until recently, Bushism referred only to George W Bush's infamous malaproprisms, such as "they misunderestimated me", "make the pie higher". As Americans gear up for the 2016 presidential elections, it is coming to mean something completely different. Two dynasties are competing for the presidency. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush will most likely face off, the former the spouse of the popular Bill Clinton (1992—1980), the latter, the younger brother of the now reviled George Bush junior (2001—2008), herein Bush II—both sons of George HW Bush senior (vice president 1980-1987, president 1988—1991).

Elites, dynasties, families, and even tribes have always been governing society. Conspiracy theorists refer to such elements as “the deep state,” a coalition of (some believe) occult forces exercising real power regardless of who is nominally in charge. Does the US have its own “deep state” too? Yes, but only a few families can be called both deep staters and political leaders. Logically, Bushism would mean a family dynasty from the deep state, in harmony with the elites, able to convince the voters that they are providing the best political leadership, given the economic system in place.

This clan rule has been the norm in pre-capitalism, and continues to some extent in the third world; for example, in Syria under the rule of the Assads and it seems to be shaping up for the Karimovs in Uzbekistan. But it has not been the rule in the West. America had a father-son president in the 19^th century (John and John Quincy Adam) and a grandfather-grandson (William and Benjamin Harrison). The Roosevelts, too, produced two presidents, uncle and nephew Theodore and Franklin. The Kennedys had their own dynastic ambitions but were stopped after just one president, John F., because both he and his most likely successor Robert were assassinated. But there was no sense of a dynasty in any of these instances. None of them were deep staters.

The Bush clan is by far the most important such dynasty. In addition to two presidents and a likely third, they also include congressmen, senators and governors. Just how coherent their politics are is moot. But the Bush family has been intimately connected with power for a century now, and thus are supported by the deep state to be president, who is (or should be for the powers that be) mostly a figurehead, following the policies necessary to maintain the US as world hegemon.

The commemoration of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on the 26^th anniversary of his passing took place at the Islamic Center of York Region on May 31. Among the speakers was Moulana Zaki Baqri, Zafar Bangash and myself. Despite hate-filled demonstrators with placards and megaphones, threatening attendees, 400 people came. Sadly, many others turned back, intimidated by the angry demonstrators.

The protesters, over 100 Iranian Canadians, Jewish Zionists and even elected politicians, were denouncing Ayatollah Khomeini as an unjust dictator, though the topic of the conference was “Khomeini's fight against injustice”. Richmond Hill MPP, Iranian Canadian Reza Moridi, called the commemoration “a shame”, though he didn't consider his joining the Jewish Defense League and B'Nai Brith in the uncultured screaming and threats of violence a shame as a Muslim and an Iranian.

 

Zafar Bangash told one journalist that if the demonstrators were against injustice, why were they demonstrating against the struggle against injustice? His only conclusion was that they supported injustice. This is starkly demonstrated by their support for Israel, and the policies of injustice in Palestine perpetrated by the Israelis and supported by the Zionist demonstrators.