That's an awfully strange question. The 'neocons', meaning the american new conservatives have been in power for awhile now. So if you mean battling the americans that is one thing, if you mean battling some sort of conservative movement in canada that caves in to the americans that's another. The conservatives haven't been in power for quite awhile now and the ruling party, while certainly conservative in fiscal matters has avoided the blatant 'social conservatism' of the american ruling party. So you need to define your terms.<br /> <br /> It seems clear that NAFTA and the WTO have it in for canadians in general, but this is all at the behest of the ruling class in canada. As far as I'm concerned, the ruling class in canada and the ruling class in quebec are one in the same and the latter simply have a different idea as to how to maintain their influence. For an english sovereigntist to ask a quebec sovereigntist to 'team up' to battle the americans seems kind of silly. The states are doing what every government does (including ours)-using it's leverage to get the maximum gains out of its investment. The problem is in Canada, not the US. So, how do you 'change' that bending over proclivity in Canada? You can ask quebec sovereigntists to team up, but no doubt they know as well as native canadians that like america, the ruling class in canada are fair weather friends

   

Remember the "who is the enemy in DD" article, I pointed out the need to identify an enemy in order to energize people out of their apathy. The "obvious enemy" was identified as the bad ugly American bully. The "chameleon enemy" was however more diffuse and everywhere and I lumped it under the "bureaucracy", again as something that the majority of People can personally relate to.<br /> <br /> Same goes with the Neocons enemy, you have got the obvious ones (the American bully) and the chameleon one that has infiltrated underneath all cultures and languages. Neocons are everywhere in all political parties, in all provinces and countries.<br /> <br /> So this Sovereingty common front would be fighting both the obvious enemy as well as the one that has infiltrated. I think Marx had the original idea but used different terminology.

   

yes but when the light of day is on them ............<br /> <br /> they melt like the Wicked witch does when exposed to water.<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker

   

You may have stated it, but it is far from proven. Personally, that's the last tact I would use in direct democracy. In fact, I think that the pointing out of an enemy would very well backlash and just make the proponent sound paranoid at worst and at best far too strident for most people to listen to. The idea of shaking people out of their apathy is rather elitist itself, you are basically saying 'agree with me!' In fact, on one hand the canadian people can be seen as being the enemy, it just depends how you frame the issue. Personally, this is partly why I run for DD. If you don't, you are basically just trying to convince people to agree with you. If YOU aren't running for DD, then you really aren't doing anything, and if you aren't doing anything, then you are just talking, and most people are far too busy with their lives to talk politics. If you want people to stop being apathetic, give them a reason, don't argue semantics.

   

Sorry, that was misleading, I realize these are big issues, not semantics. However, the point is that how do you battle apathy? You have to understand its causes. So if you aren't actually offering anything to alleviate that apathy except arguments then quite rightly most people aren't going to pay attention.

   

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The idea of shaking people out of their apathy is rather elitist itself, you are basically saying 'agree with me!' [/QUOTE]<br /> Change itself is elitist. Change only occurs one person at a time until it becomes mainstream. The threats will only be recognized by a few at first. People will only become energized when they can relate to the threat. People do not have to "agree with me". Once they become energized, they will seek ways to deal with the threats. A solution will eventually emerge out of their deliberation once energized. In the case of Canadian sovereignty, I have injected a common front solution to those deliberations. I think we agree that People need to be energized and I will argue that they can only be effectively energized if a threat or ennemy is identified. If you know of a better way (education?), please let us know. In order to be educated, the People would need to be first energized.