Jan 242021

QUESTION:  Can Water issues be used to help understand the difference between terms like Revolution, Coup, Insurrection, Insurgents, Counter-Insurgency, Up-rising?

these are political terms, they are not legal or technical terms, they are used and abused in the media and used interchangeably . 

I don’t think the meanings/distinctions are clear.

  • In some situations the term used revolves around whether Corporate America (Corporate Canada) has financial or strategic investments in the country, and whether those interests are threatened.
  • WHO? needs to be overthrown – –  or the opposite, to protect “our” financial interests – –  in the country?  . . . Is it the Government or the People in the Streets?
  • WHO? defines for our Government and media who the “Bad Guys” and “Good Guys” are.  Terms perceived to be more pejorative are for the “Bad Guys”.  (Terms like “environmentalist”, “advocate”, “activist”, “protestor” become “Bad Guys” worthy of RCMP Surveillance, Police and tear gas when they threaten the rule of the Corporatocracy and its minions.


  Water networks involving thousands of people across Canada have worked to restore protection for Water for decades.

4 points at the bottom speak to the obstacles to success, why the water won’t be protected. 


When decades of needed and legitimate citizen effort run parallel to steadily worsening systemic problems,

the land has been sown and steadily fertilized for Revolution by citizens.  (Protection of Water is far from the only issue.)

We conclude that the Government has abdicated its assigned role  to protect that upon which we all, humans and other life forms, are dependent for health and ultimately for survival.

The Government has also abdicated its assigned role of guarding our ideal of “peace, order, and good governance” in Canada.  Or so it seems to me.

Eventually, the natives realize, in spite of the rhetoric, which way the money is flowing (the ever-widening income gap);  the water is not being protected.

We talk and we get restless (ref:  common sense).  We Protest, we Occupy and we Idle No More.  For how long?

When/if citizen action looks like it might result in actual protection of Water (e.g. stop the export-for-profit),  there is push-back from corporate and government players, those who want the money, “the economic development”).  They fight to maintain the power and control they have over Water, whether to sell it, pollute it as a cost-saving measure, or exploit it in other ways.

Democratic government is replaced by corporate or fascist government.

Steadily worsening systemic problems, corporatist values

Lead to

Mobilization of citizens, non-violent resistance.


The Montebello experience

The G-20 experience in Toronto  . . .

There is a nuanced line between Revolution and InsurgencyInsurrection is  defined as an act or instance of rising in revolt,  rebellion or resistance against  civil authority or an established government.

Sometimes, words have different meanings and emotional content, depending on where they originated.

We know “Revolution” as what happened in France, and in the United States.

But Canada was loyal to the British Commonwealth.  We upheld the Colonial Power that the American Revolution was against.  I would bet that the word “revolution” does not carry the same emotional content for Canadians as for Americans.

AND THEN,  if you look at French Canada and English Canada:  as example,  St Jean Baptiste Day is scarcely known in English Canada.  Whereas, the emotional content of the word in Quebec is fiery.  Obviously,  the “We” that upheld the Colonial Power during the American Revolution does not include the Quebecois.  A few, sure.

There was active fighting and funding by Canadians, on the side of the Americans.  And anti-Government emigration to the US from Canada.

On the other hand, over time, American textbooks, media and immigration have transported American sentiments into Canada.  Canadians end up with the confusion created by the same word, from different origins.  Is it a Revolution, Coup, Insurrection, Insurgents, Counter-Insurgency, Up-rising . . . or what?

(Another example:  the word “table” in the context of meetings has opposite meaning in The USA and The UK.  Canada has large influence from both places. Canadians use the same word, but do not usually know that it can mean two different things, depending on which culture you were most influenced by.  Hence confusion over “to table …”.)







4 points speak to the obstacles to success,

why water should be, but won’t be protected. 


  1. HEALTH and WATER QUALITY are inextricably connected.

True PREVENTION of disease is the goal.  Early identification is not the same as prevention.  Prevention comes with REMOVAL OF CAUSE.

The strong Laws & Regs to keep poisonous pollutants out of Canadian water supplies are a thing of the past;  over time they have been gutted.  To serve economic interests.

  1. Establish informed expectations about any proposed Canada Water Agency.
  • Typically, the economic interests in water, trump the need to protect it, at our peril.
  • Typically, “agencies” of Government in Canada are a way to loosen democratic oversight and control.  There is far less transparency and accountability.
  • Typically,  “agencies” are run by un-elected officials who have a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) or equivalent.  They have been TRAINED & CREDENTIALED, in a specious mindset.
  1. The Federal Govt has well-resourced and funded programmes to expand the export of water from Canada.  Water export is seen as a tool of economic development.  Lots of money to be made.  Even if export-for-profit and government revenue were desirable,  water export creates VERY FEW jobs.  It moves water out of “the commons” into the private sector.  Quislings sell out the public interest.
  1. Just before Christmas, the CME Group, the New York-based market operator that takes its name from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, began trading water futures.For the first time, Wall Street traders are now able to take a stake in the future value of water, the way they have with other agricultural and mineral commodities. So far, the water contracts being bought and sold are limited to five water districts in drought-prone California, representing a tiny fraction of the water actually used in the state. But the idea of water as something to be bought and sold by Wall Street speculators does not necessarily sit well with those who study the economics of this resource in Canada. “I find it quite disturbing,” said Jim Warren, Regina-based scholar and author of Defying Palliser: Stories of Resilience from the Driest Region of the Canadian Prairies. “I mean it’s upsetting, especially since, you know, the world will be watching and others will be thinking it’s the way to go.” Read more analysis of water trading:  http://newsletters.cbc.ca/c/1F7Ks4WF0FDfJgom1noffLIuG


 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>