The New Age

I am thinking about this task I set before me. But what is this task? Every time I define it, I eventually realize that my solution is disconnected from life.

This is happening more and more. When I examine a problem, and break it down into its essential parts, understand why, the answer is always the same. The difference is on the surface and it begins to disappear as you go deeper into it.

To know what is correct, one must know the goal that is sought. The same is true for public policy, which is further burdened by the question of who are the “you” and who are the “them”. In a democratic society the question is further complicated by the knowledge that what people want, and what is good for them, are not often the same. Such is the state of our world, and the depth of our problems.

I know what the problem is–I have seen it since I was a child–but how do I label it? Labels are a construct, an inherent untruth caused by expressing something with words–words in place of what is real. Words also carry the baggage of speaker and listener, which inhibits our communication further.

Communication is a much bigger problem in our current world, much more than “guns” or “violence” or “global warming” or any other label we give to our unhappiness. To study a multitude of one type of event already chooses the perspective of their commonality. It is a prejudice to think of such things. It is outside of the greater reality, and therefor inherently misleading. It is like the religious person that declares their “team” as their salvation. Like a word they speak is a magic spell that contains some power because it is truth, but these are constructs.

“I am a Christian so I’m saved and good (therefor better than you, so give me…)”

Are you you Jesus? Are you the Christ? The Anointed One? Then you are not “Christian”! I say there has only ever been one Christian. Jesus wasn’t Jesus because of what Synagogue he went to, or who his guru was, or from any exterior adornment. It is not a turban, a holy rock, a book–all expressions of something external. They are not us. We cannot take ownership of their lessons externally.

“I am against guns”

Congratulations… Now what?

“I am a communist.” Actually… No one says that. Lol They say, “Capitalism has failed.”

What’s does that mean exactly? Why focus on that? A construct.

“Why are you, Dan, talking about this? You are going around in circles, talking about yourself–personal things! You should isolate the issue to something small and external, yet expansive and beyond control. I’m not the problem!”

Genesis, a book of many faiths, talks of “original sin” as “eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” This is a metaphor for our judgements and how we banish ourselves from a blissful garden.

We have been making the same arguments for thousands of years. We argue who is better. What is better. We argue who should get more. We argue over what truth is correct, who’s messiah is correct, who’s God is real, expecting to gain from that correctness, that actually exposes the incorrectness of our judgements and motives. We only ever argue for more of something. Search inside yourself and see. We rarely question whether more is what we need…

“Why?” Why is the question that is unasked too often. “Enlightenment” is when you understand “why?”

An enlightened man can speak. Many will hear. Many will repeat. Few will understand, because few asked “Why?” Fewer still found the answer in the self.

“Why” is so close to the core, you see. I am sure many are asking, “Why what?” but this is the ego intruding into the thoughts, living there and being so at home you don’t notice the intruder. You look in the mirror, you see the intruder, and you think it is you.

The ultimate “why” is the why of existence. That is our core. That is our life journey. That is the key to change. Not because of what I believe but because of the truth.

“What truth?”

We are on a journey.

Look at your life. Some have examined what they have in comparison to others. They feel good or bad, depending on how much they have on their side of the scale. They rarely ask why they chose to weigh those particular things in comparison. Should you really be sad to not own a nice car? Should you then be happy to have a nice car? You don’t like cars? What do you like? What frivolous thing are you addicted to?

Or why weigh at all? Is happiness born out of judgement? What does your experience tell you? Forget holy books and think. Forget about what others tell you. Listen to your own testimony.

If someone progresses to the point of wanting to abandon judgement, that is bad. If someone progresses to a point of wanting to see things as they are that is good. But how to be free of limiting judgement? Isn’t this a judgement?… The answer isn’t “how” because the source of the desire to be free is still the ego.

You expected stats? Cold numbers? A cutoff line? Where you could be “good” or “bad”, “saved” opposed to “lost”? You would be approved of or have a new enemy to blame and attack? Is this a different take on our world? Good. It’s about time.

Did you expect blame? Who is to blame? “Who” is not enlightened. “Who?” is a question of darkness. Who is of the ego. (When I typed, “who” just now on my phone, autocorrect even suggested “ego”.)

So I guess this is where I will state a thesis… The blame is on the ego–YOU.

“The Ego did what? Did the “ego” kill those children? Did the ego kill that hero teacher? That is like blaming ‘the Devil’.”

Yes. Indeed. The ego is the devil. Notice the small ‘d’, as the true devil hides in us. Do not address the devil with the respect of a capital letter or you make him real, and yet fight an imaginary foe that you will never defeat. The fight will be endless and you will have no satisfaction, no happiness.

I hear of events. I hear of unrest. There is a rape epidemic in India. The people are protesting. While many will claim sophisticated reasoning, the simple truth is that you don’t stop rape by protest. But you do change minds. You express your side, engage others. But this pressure can only change “them”. I have found it much more difficult to change “them”, than me.

“What are you talking about? Keep to one subject!”

Don’t you see? I am! It is the mind that separates.

When we start comparing figures of what killed people we forget that they were people. We lose sight of the feeling that made us look for a solution, and in such a state we will not find a solution.

If we look at “how” they were raped, “who” raped them, “where” they were raped, “when” they were raped, we mistake these answers for “why”. Most don’t know why or even ask. We run from this topic by blaming and shaming and indulging and casting the lamb out into the wilderness, confident that we are now cleansed. “They are bad” …But we can only change ourselves and change is what we need–not more blame.

The “why” is the much harder question because it is indirect. You can’t get to it. Run after it and you will answer how, who, what, where and when, but “why” will elude you.

I had an experience once. It is one of those things that atheists don’t accept. Not because some “miracle” happened–something impossible. No impossible thing happened, yet many dismiss my experience. They mock me and others because it is “just a feeling”.

If I heard those words I would be sceptical too–and I was because I thought I understood feelings and didn’t need to learn more. My definition of reason was narrow: If you can’t create it in a laboratory it can never be real.

“What is this feeling? Prove it!”

Well it’s like this, in my left hand is misery, in my right hand is joy, the bliss I felt was near the sun. When you feel it, you will also understand. But this is all irrelevant anyways. It isn’t a path so it isn’t useful… It is external. Forget it.

“A path to what?”

What do we desire? Is this entirely personal? Are we just egos battling it out in this mouldy rock for a little more of what released a happy chemical yesterday? Then who’s desires should win? Who is right? What is right…

… “Why?”…

There is that ego again. What is right? Who is right? When is right? The “why” is the answer, but an abstract one. The delusion of the ego asks the questions of the ego.

“Why do we live?”

“Why do tragedies happen?”

“What is happiness?”

These three are the same question. Our language is so poor in describing reality. One cannot get a satisfactory answer for any one question without an answer for all three. The “feeling” can answer one at a time and it answers with the same answer to all three.

What Yogi ever shot up a school?

I hear of many people who claim religion–a belief of any kind–that do horrible things. Atheists love to point out examples of ignorant people that try to use religion to coverup or justify their actions, usually, as an example of the low intelligence of religion–and therefor the stupidity of God. These people are just parrots of their egos’ favourite verses–the atheists and the theists.

This is why I like Yoga, forms of Buddhism and Toaism. They ignore God. Bless them. Only when you ignore the external G_d can you ever find any god in you. They don’t even want to call it “God” so they don’t confuse their students into looking outside of themselves. The answer is only in one place.

I once wrote something titled, “A New Year’s Resolution for Humanity”. It explained in a variety of ways, how logically we are not that smart, we don’t know very much about much of anything, and as time passes and humanity knows more and more, we all know a smaller piece–we get dumber in relation to the whole. We rely on others’ knowledge more and more, yet drift apart. And we are indeed losing touch with real wisdom as a society, yet we are gaining certainty of correctness, as we forget ourselves without technology. All we know is to consume more. Make it easier. Faster. Faster. Faster. More and then we will be happy. Why don’t we challenge this belief?

While in current times we have increased knowledge greatly over the past, we have mainly increased memorization of others knowledge of gadgets, and of the external, without even the ability to know if this knowledge be wisdom or fallacy, and we care not as long as it suits the purposes of the ego that asked the question.

We are on a journey. We cannot read about the journey and claim to have made it. We cannot see the beauty in a picture from the top of Mount Everest. Only those that made the climb can see it. Yet so many profess the truth of a photograph! This is religion.

Yet even this is false–the entire mountain is false–the climb is what is real.

We all climb our own mountains. When one finds happiness in climbing the mountain before them, they will progress to the top. At the top they will look down to see who is following and see nobody. We climb alone. Yet we believe others exist. We see them with our eyes and we don’t connect, though neither do the left and right hands.

If your partner climbs the mountain, good for them: why be proud? You did not climb. Why argue with those that haven’t climbed, or are not interested? If climbing is so great, climb! These are religious people today and all times.

Believers go to war over ideas they don’t understand to silence their self-doubt. This is trying to beat someone up the mountain. I assure you this is not the mountain to climb. The mountain of ego is “more”. The higher you try to climb the higher the mountain gets–you can never reach the top. The faster you go, the more others want to get in your way, and you will be miserable in your defeat or victory over them.

“I’ll be happy once I have______”

We all strive for happiness don’t we? It is universal. The atheist, Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Toaist, the philosopher, the Marxist, the satanist, the environmentalist, the fascist, the animal–All want the same thing. Happiness. All want the same thing?! No wonder we are always fighting and never happy! We think happiness is what we get from others. There is a limited amount and we don’t have enough. Oh no the misery!

Others are an illusion. Sounds goofy doesn’t it? Just some new age bla bla bla you have heard before. It had as little meaning then as now…

…But doesn’t happiness come form relationships? Don’t we all crave these things? Even self realized people do! Nothing is more universal. If it is universal, it is truth.

But then how can happiness come from taking and hurting and killing and lying and fighting those we could have relationships with, like we learn? Actions that foster relationships bring us the most joy.

If we know our happiness comes from giving, we must be giving to ourselves. If we are separate and losing when we give, how could losing make us happy? It is nonsense! If we are happy we aren’t “losing”. If we aren’t losing when we give to others–others must not be separate from us! We take from the left hand and give to the right hand. If what we now have in the right hand is best there, the whole is happier. The left hand is not in despair.

Logic, reason and science are about observing phenomena, making predictions, and testing the hypothesis. When one gains experience, a pattern is seen to how change is made. The way in which we struggle alone and make progress alone is telling of our relationship to the universe. We look and see others: they are but a shadow of our thoughts, feelings and actions. If others react to our choices in the way that I claim, then it shows a deeper connection–deeper than random particles bumping into each other for no reason, to no end, and without consequence.

When I was practising Kung fu, there was a saying on the wall that I would pass before lessons. “There is no enemy, the only enemy is within our own habitual patterns of passion, aggression and ignorance.” If this is our battle, how can we live in a random world with no creator and no purpose?

The better question is, if one begins to live their life this way, is the outcome foolishness? Does one fall behind in the race against the separate people that are constantly clawing at them, hurting and inhibiting them? Or does one rise above as if their thoughts, feelings, and actions create their world in a way that can only be described as a “miracle” according to your current view of cause and effect? Do the outcomes of your choices make you believe that you and the external world are one directly interconnected system? A system where you have the power to directly effect change and the inescapable burden of the equal responsibility to do so?

That “feeling” I felt, is the feeling of connectedness. Everything is connected. Everything right. You don’t think but “feel” that everything is as it should be, because nothing can be lost. There is no thought, in the standard sense because thought is a tool to create this bliss. You see how life and death connect. You see things changing and staying the same. Where your thinking alone would see contradiction, your heart sees none. Your thinking sees multiple. Your heart sees one.

Thinking is of time. Time is meaningless without events, events have no meaning without space. Thinking is therefor of this world. If you seek truth in a single false perspective, you will only see partially, or in contradiction. You will be disconnected. You will not be happy. The left will fight the right, and the whole will be lost. This is us and our world.

In our heart–hearts–are the answer to our spiritual, political, cultural, environmental, and commercial difficulties. Only there can we see how wrong we are to seek happiness outside ourselves. This fallacy is the root of all evil. No solutions can come from anywhere or anyone other than you.

We all want a messiah. We all want someone else to do the work for us. We want a devil to blame and a father figure to save us. This has been the way for thousands of years.

Progress has indeed been made. We as a species have come a long way, but much of that progress has been made on the shoulders of so few individuals.

We have much further to go and we do not have time to continue to seek change by conventional, external means. We must change so much about our society in such a short time–progressing more in the next few years than in the previous thousand.

The consequences of failure are greater than at any time in history. But I do not feel doomed, because I know the truth.

These groups we try to change are artificial constructs. They are like holograms. That is why change through force is so hard and slow. When we change ourselves we act directly upon our world–immediately and completely.

We cannot change “them” very fast at all, but I have seen a person change their own self in minutes. When we give up the fallacy of our blame and accept responsibility for all that we come across, for all that we do, think and feel, the change has already occurred. This was meant to be. This is for me. I will act. Without ego. Without anger. Without fear.

Be a leader for that change–Yes, You! You can and must lead in your own way. Inside, you are the King and Queen of your kingdom!

We need leaders for equality, but how can we have equality without perceptual equanimity?
We need leaders for peace, but how can we have peace that is not within us?
We need leaders for fairness, but how can we understand what is fair, if we cannot understand our own souls’ journey?
We need leaders for joy–yes joy–but how can we spread joy if we cannot feel it in ourselves in such quantity that we overflow?

If you do not feel this way now, how will changing “them” cause you to feel blissful? Any satisfaction will be purely of the mind, and if it is in your mind, achieve that happiness in your mind now.

So much more can be done in an atmosphere of encouragement and inclusiveness. When we unite ourself with others, in our own mind, we unite the world. What problems come from unity?

Media, Monopoly and Marxism.

I had a discussion on Facebook today, with someone who disagreed with socialism, yet supported clearly socialist ideas and policies, as I find so often. A reply by someone to the original Facebook post stated fascism and socialism were wrong, as well as all monopolies (as monopolies were assumed to be fascist in nature).

Below is my reply to posts regarding media near-monopolies, specifically how many newspapers, radio and TV stations were owned by just three corporations. I make no attempt to justify the actions or views of any media company in this blog post, but I did defend monopolies in general–in theory, as power can be corrupting (corrupting the Marxist and capitalist alike).

My concern is about the attitudes of those that we all rely upon to balance corporatism–the people. While most want to name an enemy within the people to attack, for reasons I will allude to in the post, I am more concerned with the change than I am with who is in power, as I see most oligarchies similarly.

My greatest criticism of people is how polarized between “us” and “them” we are, and how constructed, artificial and ego motivated those divisions are.

From FaceBook:

Fascism is certainly wrong we agree. (Where my reasoning differs is) I think “monopoly capitalism” is a socialist idea that is full of ‘social justice’ (need based theft).

To illustrate the small but distinct difference between the concepts of fascism and “monopoly capitalism”, I propose an example for comparison:

One person is rich and actively and purposely attempts to weaken or inhibit others–acts negatively to increase wealth, power or market share. (Regardless of the size of the business entity)

The other rich person (or not) works positively to create a great responsible product that meets the customers needs so well that all the scum-bag competitors go out of business–resulting in a monopoly.

The first is clearly more a threat to society and human rights, yet the second has the monopoly. The first is motivated by greed and fear, while the second motivated by love and joy. The first causes destruction and needless suffering. The second is an example for all business leaders.

The concept represented by the term “monopoly capitalism” is a construct of socialism that sees state ownership as righteous, and personal ownership as inherently unjust, regardless of the individuals’ actions that are judged.

The real, but often subconscious, purpose of socialist academia is to bias the language and debate to vilify and dehumanize the victims of socialism, so that the masses can more easily strip their wealth or power by force.

The fact that the individual victims’ wealth and the perceived “needs” of “the people” (the socialist oligarchs) are paramount in socialism, shows the true motive is not justice at all–but theft. Justice is in relation to actions being beneficial or not. Justice is not what I have that you need. That’s the same thinking of a fascist! The poor have it and the fascists want it, is the same as the rich have it and the socialists want it. What difference is it if I join fascists to steal from the poor, for my perceived “needs”, than if I join the poor to steal from the rich? Marxism is the flip side of the same ego coin as Corporatism. They are the problems–not the solutions.

Dan’s Estimation of the Age of the Universe

As a follow up to my post on the theory of relativity’s implications on the age of the universe and the nature of reality, I am pointing out something that has been bugging me for see time.

How did quasars get 33 billions years away from us in just 13.75 billion years since the big bang is said to have occurred when the god of randomness “created” the universe in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Here are two links from Wikipedia as sources:

Big Bang


It is a bit harder to visualize and understand a dynamic relativistic reality but no matter how I look at possible scenarios, I can’t make a 33 billion year old quasar fit into a 13.75 billion year old universe (+/- 100 million years).

If at the time of the big bang, the energy and matter that created our solar system went in the opposite direction as the energy that formed the quasar, both traveling near the speed of light relative to each other, then the light reaching us now cannot be older than the universe. The quasar, regardless of any false impression of its “real age” at any possible position within the expanding event cone, could not appear older than the universe. Period.

Einstein’s Estimation of the Age of the Universe

According to Einstein, when objects approach very near the speed of light (one of the boundary conditions of the universe) the passage of time will slow, among other bizarre effects.

The universally accepted theory (proven by atomic clocks) is that if you had two identical twins, and one climbed into a very fast space ship and left earth at near the speed of light on a circular journey around some distant star and back, that the twin that left earth would return as just a few years older, while his brother could be many years older.

A Thought Experiment:

Two twins heard this and built a space ship to test Einstein’s theory. When one of the twins returned from space ten years later, they indeed found that he had aged relatively less, almost not at all. The clock on the ship said only one year had passed while it was 10 years that passed for the twin on earth, during the same time.

The Twims went to Einstein to show him that his theory was indeed true, and ask for more of an explanation. As you can imagine, if this story were true, Einstein would be thrilled and would gladly accept them as honored guests.

As a thought experiment, hypothetically, after some discussion, the twins were satisfied and began to leave, when they turned in unison to Einstein and asked, “How old is the universe?”

To which Einstein replied, “_____________” ???

If both twins were born in the same universe, and now one was 9 years older because of the effects of relativity… Then the universe would be a different age for each twin, therefor, each twin must exist in an independent universe.

If we existed in a single objective universe we would find the universe had a definable, measurable independent reference frame. Only observers can have reference frame relative to another observation point.

All of our science points away from an objective universe existing before an observer existed to experience it. In fact as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle proves, we cannot observe an experiment (or life) without altering the experiment, and without any observation we cannot make any useful conclusions at all!

In quantum physics, the dual slit experiment (great video) showed, surprisingly, that the laws of physics for a particular reference frame could be altered by a choice of observation. When one asks before firing up the electron beam emitter, “Do the laws of physics allow a single electron particle to bend or change trajectory through a diffraction grating?” is an unanswerable question until we know whether the scientist will turn on the detector or not… While this is in a very small size domain, the results are macroscopic.

The popular scientific culture has forgotten, or not known, the significance of the dual slit experiment. Many look to science, and scientific experimentation, as a new god to answer everything and be worshipped, yet peer-reviewed duplicated post-wave-equation-collapse experimentation is the foundation of all modern science. What good is this modern scientific–or “New Athiest”–philosophy if it only ever predicts that the dual slit experiment only forms a double line and that an interference pattern doesn’t happen when it does?! As soon as one leaves the laboratory conditions of forced wave equation collapse–99.9% of our lives–the laws of physics are much different, and past and future electrons can interfere with each other, or an electron can be in many places at once interfering with itself! This is the real independent objective universe we live in–independent in that it is yours personally.

How is it again? that this non-existent artificially labelled and constructed bi- bang-universe that most call “reality” or “the universe”–that is completely different in all time and space for all observers… created the earth and life and humans? Given that it is also one of pur most trusted and verified theories that states it is impossible to create energy or destroy energy in the universe, and that energy can only be transformed, it is far more plausible that consciousness of some kind created the universe. Furthermore, our own consciousness creates our own universe as we experience it day to day–scientifically.

UPDATE: As I continue to think of this scenario, a few other interesting thought experiments can be made as a result: What if Einstein replied, to the question of how old is the universe for the twins that are now different ages, with a question to each twin? “Where were each of you five years ago today?”

Of course, one twin was on the space ship and one was building the spaceship–with the other twin that answered that he was on the spaceship at that very same time!

To Einstein, it may appear that one twin was indeed two places at once, and as far as observation is concerned there is no conflict unless Einstein observes the duplicate twin, which he did not, so he could claim that a person can legitimately be in two places at once. As long as they don’t “scientifically” observe such a thing, lending support to the notion that philosophy is a higher knowledge than science, Idealism is superior to Realism, and that reasoned observation should not be limited to post-wave-equation-collapse experimentation.

Thought experiment #3

Before the twins leave, Einstein asks them to look into his radio telescope.

The twin that went to space looked into the telescope and saw 13.75 billion year old cosmic background radiation. The twin that stayed on earth looked into the same telescope and saw 13.750000009 billion year old cosmic background radiation.

Einstein then showed them how to both look at the same image at the same time. The twin that stayed on earth says, “Look! That temperature variation looks like Elvis!” the twin that went to space won’t see the image of Elvis for 9 more years even though he is looking through the same lens, he looks at a different universe.

May Wins! : ) Greens Lose! : ,

WTF?  The unthinkable happened.  After over 1600 straight loses, the Greens have won a seat!  Green Party Leader Elizabeth May took Saanich Gulf Islands from Gary Lunn.  It’s a breakthrough!

…or is it?

Elizabeth May’s plan to focus the entire Green Party on serving–electing her has led to the loss of many members.  The campaigning machine of the Greens has been decimated outside of Saanich Gulf Islands.  Greens only converted half of their 6% average support in polls at the end of the election for a 3% total.  Half their supporters nationwide simply stayed home.  The youth vote abandoned the Greens for the NDP.  That’s as close to a “base” as the Greens have.

Now Elizabeth May will have to run the party with half of the federal funding she had from the last election…  Lowering the budget by approximately 40% is going to hurt… AND that’s if public funding isn’t completely gone in months…  Leaving the Greens with next to zero income.  With no money, it will be difficult for her to even re-win her seat, and there will be no money to put 2000 volunteers into each riding in an attempt to win.

And just when the Greens have gained some legitimacy and earned a place in the House of Commons as the fifth federal party, the talk of the country is about uniting the left to oppose the Conservatives, not adding an additional party on the left to split the vote even more…  The weakening of the Green vote in the 2011 election shows this.

If the Greens had only won a seat in the last election… and gotten into the debate in this election where “change” was in the air…  Call me an idiot, but I think if Elizabeth had put better people in place for national organizing years ago, we may have seen a Green Growth instead of an Orange Crush.

The victory of Elizabeth May is bitter-sweet in a Harper Majority, and she has an uphill battle to save the Green Party.

In a majority Harper Government, Greens may have their first irrelevant politician from a near-dead party.  Elizabeth isn’t going to like not being in the spotlight, and I suspect she will cross the floor to the NDP to not be the Green dot in the corner that will get only a handful of opportunities to speak in the house of commons in the next four years.

My question to Greens is: Now what?

Last Election For Green Party, May

Latest polling numbers indicate that the Green Party is a failed experiment in Canadian politics.   Support for the Green Party has been rapidly collapsing in recent months.

A Simon Fraser University sourced five poll average over the last two years showed a steady increase in support for Greens in 2009 and first half of 2010 with a summer peaks above 12% average support across the Country.  (

Since then–in just 8 months–the Greens have lost half of their support, down from 12% to 6%, a loss of two years worth of gains according to the SFU data.  Take a look at the graph in the link above, the trends are unmistakable, with August 2010 as the turning point…  What happened in August?…

Nik Nanos of polling firm Nanos Research, a past consultant for the Greens, has support for Greens at just 3.2% and dropping fast.  Now that the Green Party won’t be in the televised debates, it is hard to imagine anything but a crushing final defeat for Elizabeth May and the Greens.  It is doubtful that the Greens could gain back the confidence of voters after another failure.  The Party is over.

What Happened to the Greens in August 2010?

Anyone who knows metrics, looks at this study and wonders: How does a decade long steady upward trend in Green support, with no major corrections, suddenly collapse?  Without warning?… or was there warning?…  Here’s a blog written at the peak of support for the Green Party last year, titled, “The End of the Green Party?

In July 2010, Elizabeth May thought she had everything in her favor, but insiders like myself, who actually understand what it takes to build a political party and win elections, could see that the Green Party was in serious trouble: membership levels were dropping, candidates were quiting, Federal Councilors were resigning, organizers were being laid off, and the Party had a new Executive Director disagreeing with the Leadership every few months.  While the polls showed support increasing, the polls didn’t measure the level of morale of volunteers or the willingness of Greens to give more of their hard earned money for a losing cause.  Elizabeth’s insult to democracy around the 2010 BGM leadership scandal was the last straw for many.

At the peak of the Green Party’s support last year, Elizabeth May sent a personal message to Greens asking them to effectively make Elizabeth May the “Leader for Life” as some called it, instead of renew the party through a leadership race.  Undemocratically, the sponsor of the motion, rival Leadership contender, Sylvie Lemieux was denied a chance to address the membership with her own message or response–E May shut Sylvie out of the debate.  In fact May has a history of silencing those that disagree with her.

Elizabeth’s message contained several self serving lies. After the first round of voting failed to settle the leadership contest issue, May told Greens, and the media, that the issue was decided, to trick rival supporters into not showing up to vote Elizabeth May out.  Members were so disgusted, only 12% of the Party voted in favor of Elizabeth May’s Leadership, even though she implied 85% of the entire Party supported her in her press release.  Many members had silently–and not so silently–quit over the issue.

The number of environmentalist that see the Green Party as doing more good than harm, is a limited number to begin with–just ask David Suzuki.  Most of the Greens new supporters were people looking for a different style of politics.  What they got was a different type of rhetoric that quickly sounded just like the old parties, with back-room dealings, power-plays, crushing of dissent, out of control egos, nepotism, incompetence, and lies to the public.

Greens are known for voting for their choice even when the outcome is negative–helping to elect Conservatives in many ridings–because, as Greens say, “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.”  Now many see Elizabeth May and the Green Party as just another evil. In light of E May’s conduct, greens find it harder to justify supporting the Green Party.

Now, even those that remained Green supporters have lost much of their enthusiasm.  In BC, where Green support is highest, only two dozen members showed up to the recent 2010 AGM of the Green Party of BC.  The writing was on the wall.

After all the blood, sweat and tears I shed for the Greens, I am sad to see the end to what looked like such a promising opportunity for us all.   So many of us put so much into this cause, only to see it stolen by the very conduct we joined the party to oppose.

I am also bitter, because the failure of the Greens was not inevitable.  The success of the party was virtually certain until Elizabeth May came to power.

Carole James Resigns

Ding dong the bitch is gone! I always liked BC NDP Leader Carole James’ resume.  I liked her less than I liked her resume.  She sounded like exactly the kind of person we would want as Premier.   But that was the problem too–she’s trying to be someone.

Carole James is too concerned with validation from all the reasons that she was better than BC Premier Gordon Campbell.   There is a big difference between bitching about the failings of the BC Liberals and having a plan.   The province needs a plan.  Let’s hope we get one from both leadership races.

Now that Carole James is gone, there is still one other politician in BC that has been asked to resign by many respected party members.  The criticisms of Elizabeth May are the same criticisms that plagued Carole James.  Specifically that she is too controlling, power hungry and incompetent to win.  Will Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May resign now that the Greens were almost wiped out in the recent by-elections?

Watch the video about the Pirate Party almost beating the Greens in the by-elections:

Greens Sunk By Pirate Party

Check out the video lol

With the results of November 29th, 2010 by-elections, a few observations can be made:

One: No one gives a shit! Voter Turnout was in the twenty to thirty percent range.

Two: The Green Party is still afloat, but sinking fast, after almost being beaten by the Pirate Party. That’s right…  A political joke party called the Pirate Party was twenty votes away from beating Elizabeth May’s Green Party in Monday’s By-election.  In Winnipeg North, the drop was from a poor 4.75 percent  to an embarrassing zero point seven percent.  In the Ontario riding of Vaughan, the Greens’ popular vote dropped from 6.9 percent in 2008, to only 1.2 percent.. Greens received only 1404 total votes in all by-election races combined.  Even Elizabeth’s organic farming star candidate and Green Party Federal Counsellor Kate Story could only inspire 809 votes in Monday’s By-election. The results for the Greens’ was just 5.6 percent of the vote, which is worse than the same candidates 2008 finish.

People are sick of being misled by politicians.  Elizabeth May called the 1.2% finish for the Green Party in Vaughan a “strong campaign” in her press release.  How is losing 80% of your popular vote a “strong campaign”… or honest?

Wasting Years With Elizabeth May

I sent the following e-mail (in italics) to Elizabeth May on, or around, November 27, 2008–two years ago.  I had been heavily involved in the Greens for two years and knew what needed to be done.  While her manipulative supporters said I should shut up and “Stop hurting the party”, this private letter proves that my goal was to help.  The lack of action or response shows that Elizabeth May and her unelected clique hurts the party with their incompetence.


My name is Dan Mick.  I have sent you several e-mails in the past, and since this will go to your assistant, I have no way of knowing if you ever receive them or have the time to read them.  Please call me.  I can be a valuable asset.

I have always preferred actions to words, so instead of just a message of support, I will provide what support I can to end the division within the GPC.

While there has been much criticism directed at you recently, you can take some comfort in the fact that the disagreement is not with you personally.  If everything went as it did, but three greens were elected, the party would be unified behind you, as it was when I criticized GPC Organizing in the spring.

In the past, some of the GPC leadership including Jim Harris and Sharon Labchuk, have been quick to silence all who disagree with them.  This has not solved any of the very real problems with the functioning of the party.  The frustration of members that feel they do not have a voice, are calling for a Leadership review to guarantee review of internal GPC policies and operations.  Your replacement is not the goal of the majority of your critics. Greens are unified around the GPC platform.  The only disagreement is on how we can make each point into a law of the land.

The current situation represents a great opportunity for change and growth, but also a threat that could permanently fracture the GPC. Your decisions alone on whether to regard the situation as a threat–or opportunity–will determine the success of Greens in the next general election.


Further attempts to limit or silence criticism will backfire and increase opposition.  Instead, appoint one of your detractors to actively seek criticism and solutions.  This immediately allies you with your perceived opponents.  To expect those that were in a position of authority to investigate their own failures will not produce any positive results.  Someone from outside the current structure will do a better job.

By “seeking criticism” I mean that someone should find all those that have any grievance whatsoever and guide their frustration into suggestion and action.  Part of this process is to allow frustrations to vent.  This will refocus us and increase activity to rebuild our motivation and grow our volunteer base.

Questions for Members:

How do you feel about the past election?

What went poorly?

How do you feel about GPC Organizing?

What can the GP do better?

How do we implement that?

Who else should I talk to?


We can use the situation to create excitement among Greens.  It may also be beneficial if you would contact some of the more outspoken Greens and listen to their criticisms.  You don’t need to defend or even reply–only listen and inquire deeper with open ended questions so that they know you care about their views and are as concerned as they are.

There has been anger over strategic voting comments, with blame put solely on you.  This is evidence of the GPC’s over-concentration on messaging.  Every riding that received 9-10% (while polling much higher) indicates more a failure of the GOTV effort, than any of your misquoted comments.

Nik Nanos has said that the success of the GPC will be determined by our organizing success.  For polling support to double while membership levels drop during the two-year pre-election period indicates that GPC Organizing is in serious disarray.  Changes must be made in this area to unify the party.

While the group that opposes you is small, they are very determined and they include many of the best organizers in the GP that have been excluded because of their opposition to the methods of Sharon Labchuk.  This group is what the party needs to succeed on election day.  Let’s harness their energy and give them something productive to do.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dan Mick

It is now two years later and the problems are in fact worse.  None of this advice has been taken.  Elizabeth still refuses to speak to anyone who disagrees.  She is weak and incompetent.  Elizabeth May isn’t cut out to be a Member of Parliament or the Leader of political party.  Resign now Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May On Quantum Buddha’s Blog Animated Show

Elizabeth May’s cartoon double (that looks like Sarah Palin) was on my blog show tonight answering questions about the Green Party of Canada and her leadership. This is my first video effort and I’m only using the free online version of the software. It has limitations. Enjoy the video. Booya!

For entertainment purposes only… lmao