The Ideology of Tyranny
The conditions of Trudeau's emergency were created by the elite's ideology
When the truckers arrived in Ottawa, protestors carried signs calling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a tyrant. I thought that greatly overstated. I was wrong: Justin Trudeau’s government has now arrogated to itself the power to seize the bank accounts of anyone it dislikes. Whether or not he has now abjured that power – citizens’ accounts remain frozen – he can take it back at will. Without a warrant, without a charge, without a conviction, Trudeau can take your money.
Powers once intended for use against foreign terrorists are now aimed at peaceful citizens.
There has been little complaint, and certainly no outcry. The Conservatives make speeches in Parliament, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has launched a legal challenge. However laudable, these efforts have something pro forma about them. They are expected reactions from expected opponents. This essay observes the social and ideological conditions under which tyranny meets so little resistance.
Tyranny begins with attacks on the legitimacy of its targets. The protesters have faced a campaign of delegitimization from the organs of elite opinion – the media, broadcasters, academic talking heads, and most significantly today social media. That campaign proclaimed, falsely but effectively, the protesters to be far-right insurrectionists and white supremacists (I summarize) threatening Ottawa with violence and hatred.
I live in downtown Ottawa, and took several walks amongst the protestors over the past three weeks. The most unpleasant thing I met was the winter wind. The protestors themselves were unfailingly friendly and welcoming. I did see one man shouting profanity, but that was at the protestors, and they ignored him. My experiences comport entirely with those reported, much more thoroughly, by Rupa Subramanya, on Bari Weiss’s Common Sense substack. Ms. Subramanya spoke to too many people – 100 of them – for her evidence to be dismissed as anecdotal cherry-picking.
Most notably, a large number of people were waving many – one might say a diversity – of flags, including, it is relevant to note, the Canadian flag in diversity rainbow colours, and a number of Mohawk flags. It is (alas) necessary also to record that those people were of many skin tones and spoke in varied languages and accents. Many cried “Freedom!”; a large number “liberté!” So then, obvious fascists.
On the other side of the coin, we have the Globe and Mail, Canada’s self-described national newspaper, the paper of record, the equivalent of the New York Times. It is representative of elite opinion. Two weeks into the protests, the Globe found five residents of the downtown area who complained about the honking and trucks in their streets, and said they felt threatened. None reported violence, the closest the Globe could come to being a second-hand anecdote.
One man said that the truckers’ honking was “torture,” and the Globe was pleased to take hyperbole at face value. I live a kilometer from Parliament Hill, the centre of the protests, and while the honking did become tiresome, it stopped when a court issued an injunction. That, one might think, demonstrated the law-abiding character of the protesters.
Swastikas made, and still make, their inevitable appearance in pretty well all mainstream media coverage, and of course in ministerial speeches. I saw, in my peregrinations, no swastikas. I did see a video of a Canadian flag marked with swastikas, obviously an accusation of Nazi-like behaviour on the part of the government. Swastikas can be used not to advocate but to accuse. When protestors for approved causes use Nazi icons, the mainstream media have no trouble discerning the obvious point.
The advertent misunderstanding is powered by arrogance: yahoos who disagree with us must necessarily be stupid or evil, and here – aha! it slips out! – is the conclusive demonstration of what we already believe. The circularity of ideology, turning prejudice into observation (always already, as it were) is on full display.
Nazi parallels are normally more productive of heat than light. The lesson for future anti-bureaucratic protestors must be that they live in a hostile environment: know that power will put the worst possible construction on any symbol you choose, any choice you make.
All of the Globe’s five Ottawa residents stressed their anxieties about, in the paper’s phrase, “gangs of protesters.” Most of the material hardships they reported – closed businesses and closed jobs – were a function of these same fears of barbarians from the provinces. It is tempting simply to say that they read the Globe and Mail too much, and leave it at that. But these circular, self-imposed costs are now the justification of arbitrary power.
The truckers and their supporters were, in my observation, good natured and law-abiding people. They were deeply uncomfortable about confrontation with the police, which is understandable as they are lawful people, and many are veterans or former police. Until the Prime Minister’s emergency decree, their only unlawful activities had been unlicensed barbeques and parking violations. Their crime has been retroactively invented.
The truckers have become the target of a hegemonic power that works by designating the boundaries of the legitimate. It works, as the Prime Minister so usefully illustrated, through the designation of who holds “unacceptable views.” It works through the self-fulfilling prejudice that men in trucks must be dangerous racists. It works more articulately, if not precisely more intelligently, through the organs of elite opinion, providing very partial information, signaling the bounds of the legitimate.
Hegemonic power also works through corporate power, as was demonstrated by GoFundMe in attacking the protesters’ funds, even before the state did. It is easy to point to the hypocrisy of corporations that in 2020 celebrated the murderous occupation of Seattle and the bloody riots of the left, but now crack down on the entirely imaginary violence of anti-bureaucratic workers. The ease is exactly the point: some actions work in approved directions; others do not, and are therefore defined as unacceptable.
And hegemonic power works through the labour aristocracy employed by tech companies, a class that will demand action of their bosses. The same population is ready to hack into dissenting sites such as GiveSendGo, and to publicize for persecution, and possible real violence, the personal details of anyone disobedient enough to support unacceptable views.
Finally, hegemonic power occupies the institutions of the state. Most relevantly, it permeates the legal profession. That will include the prosecutors and judges before whom protestors will appear. Left wing protestors will have pro bono attorneys come out of the woodwork; even many prosecutors will not really want to prosecute. The opposite will be true of anti-bureaucratic protestors.
Not long ago, hegemonic power loudly denounced the police. Now, it has control of the police, and it rewards their subservience with increased power. This creates a dangerous alliance between a tyrant in office, and leftist elites in control of both the means of discourse and the permanent bureaucracy. It is an interesting social and ideological phenomenon. I shall aim, in this substack, to subject it to a persistent analysis.