Why the Canadian Government Seems to Hate Canada

There is an old saying, “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by simple incompetence.” And Justin Trudeau was certainly unqualified for his job as Canadian Prime Minister. Nevertheless, some pundit recently said that the destruction Justin Trudeau has wrought on Canada over the past ten years cannot be accounted for by mere incompetence. It must have been out of malice.

And Carney, boasted of being particularly well-qualified, seems to be continuing many of the same destructive policies. Notably the “elbows up” approach to negotiating with the US and Donald Trump: sheer suicide.

It sounds mad, of course: why would someone want to be Prime Minister in the first place, if they hate the country? Isn’t patriotism, love of country, the natural emotion? 

Yet we can see it is true, not only of Trudeau, or Carnet, but of the left generally. Not only in Canada, but across the developed world. The Canadian “woke” left show open contempt of Canada: its history, its customs, its values. It is the despised patriarchy, a “settler colonial state,” guilty of imagined genocide against First Nations, and of an imagined history of slavery. Statues of its founders must be pulled down, their names erased from public places. Trudeau asserts, “there is no Canadian mainstream.” If not evil, Canada is nothing at all.

Trudeau’s policies are the natural expression of this. Canada must be beaten down and suppressed. And the fact is, this is a sentiment shared by enough Canadians to keep him in power for ten years, then vote in his chosen successor. With similar leaders and electoral successes in other nations.

Where does this weird hatred for established institutions come from? Commentators commonly cite guilt over the past; but I dissent. There is actually little in our collective past to feel guilty about; the guilt is mostly falsified and manufactured. It cannot be the cause.

It is often also described as “self-hate.” I almost used the term myself, and balked. That is not so. Nobody can plausibly accuse Justin Trudeau of having too little ego. It is not a matter of hating oneself, but of scapegoating others, either whitey or men or one’s own ancestors, in order to make oneself seem more important, significant, and virtuous. 

 I think narcissism is again, as so often, the answer. Across the developed world, thanks to modern pop psychology, “building self-esteem,” “self-assertion,” and the doctrine of “unconditional love” in childrearing, we have deliberately bred several generations of narcissists.

If you put a narcissist in charge of anything he has not built himself, he or she will try to destroy it. Why? Because he did not build it. Destroying it makes it fully his, uniquely his possession, and ensures no one else can own it. 

This simple explanation can account for nearly everything that has gone wrong in the culture. It explains the seemingly self-destructive “woke” ad campaigns we have seen in recent years: executives and ad agencies seeming to deliberately alienate their consumers. Like Bud Light’s Dylan Mulvaney ads, or Jaguar’s bizarrely sexually ambiguous ads. It explains Hollywood movies going “woke” and alienating their audiences by deliberately tinkering with and altering the characters that built their “franchises.” It explains the many “legacy” comedy TV shows that seem to have stopped telling actual jokes and trying to be funny. It explains the outrageous media bias of recent years, grand old newspapers and news organizations destroying their credibility with the public. As David Burge put it, “The Left doesn’t create institutions. It infiltrates them, captures them, and then wears them like a skinsuit, demanding respect.”

If a narcissist has not created something--and narcissists are never creative--they will do their best to infiltrate, capture, destroy, and demand respect for themselves. Trudeau is a classic example. 

Not incidentally, this is also true of the family. If a narcissist has children, he or she will do their best, openly or secretly, to destroy them. Abortion is the most obvious example. It expresses their complete possession and dominance. They will also tend to destroy the legacy of their parents, as Justin has marred the memory of his father Pierre. Like the mobs pulling down statues of the founders. Like Kronos in Greek myth, to the extent they can, they first castrate their own fathers, then devour each of their children as they are born.

Can Canada escape collapse? Perhaps. There are signs of redemption south of the border, at least. Canada always wants to do whatever big brother is doing, with a lag of about seven years.

But it will take several generations to repair the damage.

I Was Wrong

 

I got it wrong. I thought Justin Trudeau would call an election rather than step down; or at least, would not prorogue parliament, tacitly forcing his party to leave him in place to face the next election.

He did prorogue parliament, and he did announce he is stepping down. 

I think it is still significant that he called for a robust, nation-wide leadership contest. According to the Liberal Party constitution, a leadership contest must last at least ninety days, and must be called within 27 days of a leader stepping down. Prorogation lasts until March 24. That math says Trudeau will still be in place when the new Speech from the Throne is read, which Jagmeet Singh has publicly stated the NDP will vote against. And so it appears that Trudeau can still hope to be leader of the Liberals in the next election. If by some miracle he wins that election, all talk of his resignation will be forgotten.

I believe the party’s board of directors can amend and shorten that time frame with a 75% majority. But that’s a high bar. And there will surely be pressure not just from Trudeau, but from some possible contenders, not to do so. A shorter time frame favours the already better-known candidates.

In the meantime, there is talk of a court challenge to the prorogation itself. It looks constitutionally illegitimate to prorogue for such a long period, and transparently to prevent parliamentary accountability. Trudeau can hope for a court ruling forcing parliament back, if as I suspect he is hoping to hold the leadership into an election.

Trudeau may not be gone yet.

What Trudeau Is About to Do

 

Whatever I write now is likely to be obsolete before you read it. But let\s do this as a transparent test of my predictive abilities.

Rumours are everywhere that Justin Trudeau is going to resign as Liberal leader today or tomorrow.

He may have to, but it seems to me that doing this is to nobody’s benefit.

Trudeau obviously does not want to resign.

It is not good for the country, because it leaves us without leadership and for a protracted time, just as we are facing a grave external threat, with the Trump tariffs.

It is not good for the Liberal Party. Polls suggest they might do marginally better in an election under a new leader. But there is no saviour in the wings; in fact, no clear candidate who would be as good at campaigning as Trudeau; so it looks like a wash. Freeland has an annoyingly shrill voice and a habit of talking down to people. Carney is a grey bureaucrat. Nobody else has a public profile. 

Proroguing Parliament, either to hold a leadership contest or to delay an election under Trudeau, looks like a bad option. It again leaves Canada rudderless in a crisis, and the public will not be forgiving of that. It also looks desperate and undemocratic, a power grab, and the public will not be forgiving of that. And it means the government will soon run out of money—more chaos. And the public will not be forgiving of that. 

And from the point of view of any leadership candidate: it looks like suicide to run for the job now. They will have no time to introduce themselves to the public, will walk right into a massive electoral defeat, and will be tossed into the dumpster of history. Much better to let Trudeau take the loss, and rebuild starting next year. Or, if you are a prominent Liberal, skip this race and get ready to fight the inevitable next one in a year or two.

So since nobody benefits, why should Trudeau do this? It is also against his character: his entire mojo is self-confidence, and ignoring the blows. That was his strategy in boxing  Senator Brazeau, which won him the leadership; it is his signature move.

So I bet instead of resigning, he will call an election, and let the chips fall where they may. 

His caucus will resist. They know they will almost all lose their seats, and so would rather drag the mandate out for as long as possible. But they are being foolish, running around like a bunch of chickens in a rainstorm. “As long as possible” looks now like only a month or two, until Parliament passes a non-confidence motion. So why quibble? Best to get on with the rest of their lives.

So I predict Trudeau will not announce his resignation, but call an election. Or, if he feels he cannot brave the caucus, he will say he is resigning, but staying on as interim leader, and not proroguing parliament. Then he can expect that the government will fall before the new leader is selected, especially if the process is made lengthy, and he will still lead the party into the next election. That is better for the party, better for the country, and his one chance of staying on as prime minister. It actually worked for his father. Pierre Trudeau announced his resignation in 1979, then the PC government fell, and he agreed to lead his party into the next election. He won, and all talk of retirement was forgotten.

Now we’ll see how good I am at predictions.

Downfall

 

Many commentators are asking how Trudeau and the PMO could have been so clueless as to think that Chrystia Freeland would cheerfully agree to reading a Fall financial statement she disagreed with, and then be replaced as finance minister the next day, for a position without portfolio. And being told this over a Zoom call! And without having any assurance from Mark Carney that he would take over!

The answer is narcissistic rage. 

Trudeau knew he was about to lose power. The polls show it, and now Trump was about to drop the hammer.

As M. Scott Peck pointed out, when a narcissist is challenged, and sees no exit, they lose touch with reality, become psychotic. Their world-view is in the first place based on a delusion, of their own superiority. Panicked, the imperative was to prove to himself that he still had power, by exercising it on someone else ruthlessly. He had to kick the dog, beat his child, see someone else entirely under his power suffer.

Freeland looked like a suitable scapegoat and victim, precisely because she had always been so loyal.  It would be most cruel, then, if he turned on her, and most hurtful.

Was it liable to blow up the government? Trudeau was not going to care. He knew he was going down anyway. His instinct was to do as much damage to others as possible as he went. Make it as spectacular as possible, to stay special. Best if he could destroy Freeland, destroy the Liberal Party, and leave Canada in the worst position to negotiate, on the way down. The narcissist, if he must lose, will do his best to take the world with him. It is the way a school shooter thinks.

What might Trudeau do next? I think it would be most characteristic for him not to prorogue parliament and step down, allowing the Liberals to choose a new leader. Rather, it would be to use the one power he has left: to go to the Governor-General and ask for dissolution and an election himself, or concur with Poilievre's call for a special sitting of Parliament. He's going down anyway. This is his chance to stick it to the Liberal Party, to those in the party who want him gone, and to the leadership hopefuls. It would also take revenge on Jagmeet Singh, who seems to be counting on the Liberals stalling by proroguing parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote until February, when Singh's pension kicks in.

Let's see.

Canadian Government in Chaos

Things in Ottawa are happening too quickly for commentary. The Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Freeland, resigned two hours before she was to present the fall budget statement in the Commons, openly criticizing the PM for the policy she was about to announce.

The automatic next in line as finance minister, Champagne, immediately refused the position and refused to read the financial statement. 

PM Trudeau is apparently not available.

I don't know yet who actually presented the budget statement. 

Also this morning, the Housing minister resigned.

The Minister of Transport and Head of the Treasury Board, Anand, was cornered in the hall, and was clearly emotional. She was blindsided by Freeland’s resignation. She refused comment, saying she needed to compose her thoughts.

Situation changing hourly. Whatever happens next, this one will be in the history books.

This all seems to have been triggered by Trump’s tariff threat. Freedland refers to it in her resignation letter.

I think Trump knew what he was doing. Amid such chaos, it will be difficult for the NDP to vote confidence in the government yet again.

How Trudeau Will Kill Canada

 

Jordan Peterson points out that Justin Trudeau is a narcissist. This is dangerous, because he is about to lose power. What does a narcissist do if he is rejected? Narcissistic rage. He will try to destroy those who have rejected him. This is the impulse that gives us mass shooters. Trudeau has no love for Canada. On leaving office, he is likely to do whatever is in his power to destroy Canada, for letting him down.

We saw Hitler do this, ordering the destruction of German infrastructure in his final days, rather than letting it fall to the Allies. Orders fortunately countermanded by Speer.

Biden is also an extreme narcissist. This is why he sabotaged Kamala Harris’s campaign in subtle ways; why he sabotaged the Democratic Party by pardoning his son. They let him down. Now he is releasing long-range missiles to Ukraine. We must fear what else he might be up to; especially since he has the nuclear codes. But the US president is fortunately relatively restrained in what he can do unilaterally. 

Trudeau, as Canadian Prime Minister, unfortunately, has more unilateral power and fewer constraints. The Liberal Party’s rules prevent MPs from rising against him. He can do more damage than Biden can. He has already pushed through some outrageous legislation. We must fear what he may do in the almost one year he has left, if he grasps that he is inevitably going to lose the net election.

Investment in Canada has been in decline ever since he took power in 2015.The Canadian economy does not look that bad yet, but I suspect that it has been running on prior reputation and fumes. That can go on for a while, and then there is a general collapse. We already have a homelessness crisis, a medical crisis, a drug crisis, and a cost of living crisis. And a foreign affairs crisis, Trudeau having alienated many trading partners. Even without Trump’s 25% tariffs, things could get worse quickly. I now think Trump genuinely intends to impose the tariffs. And Trudeau may be doing his best to speed the general collapse. He wants it. Canada has failed him.

Jordan Peterson fears that by the time Poilievre gets into power next October or before, the damage may be too great to repair. He will just be left holding the bag. 

We may be begging the US to come in and take over.

Something similar happened to Scotland in 1707: economic hardship and poor management obliged them to unite with England, in return for debt relief. Similar financial problems convinced Newfoundland to join Canada in 1947. 

Why would the US want us?

Canada’s natural resources, including important strategic materials, make it a good investment.

But more critically, in this age of easy transportation and mass migration, the world’s longest undefended border has become untenable. It is possible to build a wall across the US-Mexico border. The Canada-US border is too long for that, and needs to remain porous to sustain the current volume of trade. 

The only solution to that problem is to ensure that Canadian and US immigration and border policy is the same: undesirables must be stopped on entry to Canada, as they cannot be stopped at the US border.

This means the US border must encompass Canada. 

Trump may have seen this, and the 25% tariff may be intended to force the issue.

Let’s just hope it happens without too much suffering, dislocation, or blood.

The Carney Is in Town

 

Man temporarily dismounted from his white horse.

Yesterday, we wrote a little about the chaos among the Democrats in the U.S. over their leadership. A simultaneous crisis is underway among Canadian Liberals. They have just lost one of the three to five safest Liberal seats in the country, Toronto-St. Paul’s, in a byelection. Their polling is underwater somewhere in Hudson’s Bay. What can they do?

My own local MP, Wayne Long, has just openly called for Trudeau to step down. But the Canadian system is not like the British system. The party leader must sign the nomination papers for all local candidates. That makes him or her a dictator within the party: any sign of disloyalty means the local member is out at the next election. This is very unlike the way the Westminster system is supposed to run; properly, the party leader serves at the pleasure of his or her caucus. After all, the people vote for their local members, not the prime minister. This Westminster system allowed Britain to quickly replace Chamberlain with Churchill in the crisis at the beginning of the Second World War. It could instantly solve America’s problem with Joe Biden’s senility. Losing it also loses the entire point of having debates over legislation in the House of Commons; members cannot vote their conscience. They are just expensive trained seals. 

Something like the Westminster system has been revived in the Canadian Conservative Party, thanks to the efforts of Michael Chong. Without it, they would still be stuck with Erin O’Toole, instead of Pierre Poilievre, as leader,

As a result of this Liberal dictatorship, MP’s do not dare come out against the leader. Wayne Long was able to, because he is not running again in any case. And because he has an independent profile back home. Rumour has it that a majority of Liberal members actually want Trudeau to go. But they do not dare raise their hands. All they can do is vote against their own leader in a confidence vote—leading to an election in which they would be barred from running—or cross the floor and join another party.

Trudeau has no intention, it seems, of resigning. Rumour has it that he plans a cabinet shakeup to try to get the poll numbers back up. He wants to sacrifice his finance minister and deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, scapegoating her for the taxes and rising cost of living that has queered Canadians on him. This is, interestingly, a tactic favoured by his reputed father, Fidel Castro: blame the economists for supposedly giving bad advice. Then Trudeau’s rumoured plan is to bring in Mark Carney as the new finance minister, as part of a wider cabinet shakeup. Freeland, after all, had no background in finance, business, or economics; she was a journalist. Carney has sterling credentials, literally--as in ponds sterling-- a banker and a former governor of both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England. He might calm the public and give the government credibility. Folks might believe better times were ahead, if they just stuck with the gummint.

Many have pointed out a problem with this plan. Carney has no seat in parliament. All the commentators I have heard or read seem to think this is a constitutional requirement for a cabinet appointment.

It is not. 

Senators can be appointed to cabinet. Justin Trudeau can appoint senators. Pierre Trudeau, wanting cabinet representation from the Prairie provinces, and lacking any M.P.’s, appointed Hazen Argue from the Senate as minister for the Canadian Wheat Board. Appointing from the House of Lords is fairly common in Britain; David Cameron is currently serving as foreign secretary from the House of Lords.

So Trudeau could simply appoint Carney to the Senate. Problem solved.

He does not even need to do that. There is precedent for appointing a member of the general public to the Cabinet, on the understanding that they will run for election within a reasonable time. Pierre Trudeau appointed Pierre Juneau to Cabinet from outside Parliament in 1975.

Since the next election is relatively close in any event, and there is no written law on the matter, only convention, Trudeau could appoint Carney to cabinet on Carney’s public promise to run in that election.

So the Carney plan could work. 

Would Carney want to do it?

Would it save the Liberals?

I think he wants it.

I don’t think it can save the Liberals.

But it may be their best shot. 

Downfall

 

The common wisdom is that Justin Trudeau’s poll numbers are collapsing now because people are tired of his government. There is a natural cycle, and nobody stays in for more than about ten years.

That’s what the established punditry wants you to believe. Because they like Trudeau’s policies, and hope they continue.

I think this is wrong. Canada is actually unusual among democracies for keeping governments and leaders they like in power for a long time: Mackenzie King, Ontario’s Big Blue Machine, Smallwood in Newfoundland, Hatfield in New Brunswick, the Tories in Alberta, Duplessis in Quebec, and so on.

Second, Trudeau was never popular. He squeaked in twice by merely coming second in a three-way race. 

Third, only being tired of him does not tally with such a dramatic poll collapse. It looks more like some pent-up anger is at last being allowed expression.

Until now, quite simply, nobody offered an alternative. Scheer and O’Toole promised to govern the same way he was. They effectively endorsed Trudeau. All you got was a new face. The NDP under Singh was also indistinguishable on ideology. Much as they may have hated Trudeau’s policies or approach, they despised Scheer or O’Toole or Singh as much as Trudeau, or more, for denying them that choice.

Poilievre is their first chance to vote against6 Trudeau. They are excited about it.

Scanning the Help Wanted Columns

 It’s laughable, but it’s probably true. Warren Kinsella, who claims to have inside sources, says everyone around him knows it is time for Justin Trudeau to resign as Liberal leader. It is that party’s only hope to “save the furniture.” But the holdup is that they can’t find a suitable new job for him.

This is an unfortunate consequence of electing someone unqualified to high political office. They are bound to cling to it. Other ex-PMs, with law degrees, could easily slip into a position with some top corporate firm. Otherwise, management experience or an M.B.A. might justify a seat on a corporate board. He doesn’t have the academic credentials nor gravitas to look plausible as a visiting professor; the appointment might be more embarrassment than embellishment for a prestigious institution. A job as a lobbyist would be unseemly and look shabby; and, in any case, Trudeau is too egotistic to butter successors up and ask for favours.

 So Trudeau’s tempted to overstay in this job because it seems he will never get another job nearly so good. And it’s not just the money, I’m sure. It’s the blow to his ego. Makes him look like a failure.

Theoretically, the Liberals could appoint him to some cushy position within government. Although, if it were not to some international body, or Governor-General, it would still look like a comedown. But even if Trudeau was appointed to some ambassadorship or the like by a new Liberal leader, it would be barely weeks before the next election. It would become an issue during that election, as Turner’s spate of patronage appointments in 1984 helped sink that Liberal ship. And the appointment would be reversed as soon as the new government came into power, as Mulroney cancelled John Turner’s appointments.

The Liberals are probably looking at a eight to twelve years out of power. That’s a long time to try to make a living as a supply teacher.

Could he be appointed to some sinecure by a helpful provincial government? That’s still a comedown. There is only one Liberal premier in office, Furey in Newfoundland. An appointment in Newfoundland would look fishy, and it is not a big province with many important positions in its purview. And Trudeau has been feuding with Furey, and all the premiers.

He has similarly alienated important foreign leaders: of Italy, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel. He has an undiplomatic reputation. No international body is likely to welcome him to a position of leadership, other, perhaps, than the WEF.

The subsidized media might be expected to give him a position as a full-time political commentator or the like. But he has shown no ability to say anything insightful or candid; it would not be a natural fit. The CBC, faced with a new Conservative government, probably wouldn’t dare be so openly partisan. Other outlets probably couldn’t see a business case for it; he’s unpopular, and would compromise their reputation for fairness. Sure, maybe we owe him, but why can’t the next guy take the hit? We’re struggling here. 

You’d think his friends in China or Cuba would offer him something.

Or Disney? How about the lead in a new version of "Song of the South"?

Someone Else Is Noticing

 

What a disaster Trudeau has been in foreign relations.

Counting Cats

 

Dancing the bhangra in catface

I wonder if, from the broad view of history. Justin Trudeau’s premiership will look like the Canadian Liberal Party’s dead cat bounce.

I think that the Liberal Party was actually destroyed by Jean Chretien.

Before Chretien, the Grits did not have principles in an ideological sense, but it was the party of the Canadian ruling class, a gentlemen’s club, and it ran on noblesse oblige. As the Natural Governing Party, its mandate was at least plausibly and in the public mind to do what it thought was best for Canada as a whole, in a more or less pragmatic way, with good will toward all. This made sense in a country that, like Canada, was naturally rent by internal divisions.

Chretien broke that mold with his bareknuckle politics within the party. Internally, the party became a dictatorship. Now it was all about power and loyalty to the leader. There was no more room for gentlemen.

Which sacrificed the long-term future of the party to Chretien’s interests. Being a Liberal was all about whether you liked the current leader. The party from then on, and given the structures Chretien created, would stand and fall on the charisma of the current leader. There was no principled reason to be a Liberal.

So they struggled and swapped leaders in and out, the opposite of the longstanding Liberal tradition: Martin, Graham, Dion, Ignatieff, Rae. There was nothing there until they turned, in what seemed desperation, to Justin Trudeau. Surely there was hereditary charisma there?

It worked better than it should have. Pretty decent dead cat bounce. But after his first election, the best JT could do were bare pluralities, while actually behind in the popular vote. Now the body politic’s reflex twitching, partly due to force of Liberal habit, seems to have subsided. Partly due, in turn, to the fact that Trudeau has not been governing in the old Liberal pragmatic way, but has been partisan and divisive. Fully and finally obliterating the Liberal centrist brand. And he has been more dictatorial than Chretien.

Now, as generally with dictators, there is a problem with the succession. The Liberal Party previously always had a leader of the loyal opposition inside the party, a John Turner, a Paul Martin, a Paul Martin Sr., because there was room for it. There was always a reason to be a Liberal above and beyond loyalty to the current leader, and an accommodation for that, with some degree of mutual deference, within the party. This is important to a party’s survival, because, if the current leader is no longer popular, the new leader must not be too closely identified with him, but suggest renewal.

When Chretien left, even with a plausible successor available, the party spiralled into third party status because it lacked any underlying raison d’etre. Preserving a strong centrist party is always challenging, against the natural dichotomy of left and right. The process was not yet as far along at that point. Pulling it out of the death spiral with Trudeau seemed a very close shave then. 

It seems unlikely that the Libs will again come up with someone plausible out of the ether before the party mechanism dissolves, being held together only by a chance at patronage and power, and the country moves on. 

The Trump Campaign in Canada

 

The Canadian Conservative party, while still leading handily, has fallen by ten points in recent polls. Why?

So far as I can figure, only one thing has changed: Donald Trump is up in the US polls. Justn Trudeau has started campaigning against Trump instead of Poilievre. His message now, incongruously enough, is that a vote for him is a way to protest Trump.

So why do Canadians react so viscerally, indeed irrationally, to Trump? Why is Trump such a bogeyman in Canada?

 Because Trump is boastful and rude. This is just not the way a Canadian ever behaves. It is not “nice.” 

Small-minded, I know. But that’s Canada.

Footsteps

 

Responding in Toronto to a man who refuses to shake his hand, Trudeau looks like he has seen a ghost.

Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government seem to be committing suicide. 

The Atlantic provinces were a stronghold for them; now they are losing it by pushing forward with their carbon taxes. 

Muslim Canadians were supposed to be their client group, a reliable constituency; recently, Trudeau branded Muslim parents “hateful,” and refused to apologize when the largest Muslim body in Canada asked for one. 

A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister picked a senseless public fight with India. This might play well with Sikhs in Canada, or those of them who are anti-India; but surely risks losing support among the 66% of Indo-Canadians from India who are not Sikhs. 

Last week, or the week before, the House of Commons entertained a Nazi. At a minimum, Trudeau’s government did not vet him, despite the obvious questions raised by someone who fought against Russia in the Second World War—and this turns Trudeau’s favorite attack on any and all opponents, that they are “Nazi sympathizers,” against him. He probably dares never use it again. The necessary level of incompetence here seems so high, the alternate explanation seems more plausible: a death wish.

And a death wish is plausible. We all have one. When our conscience tells us we are doing harm, not good, or have worn out our welcome in this world, it begins to nag at us. Not necessarily that we go and commit suicide; but our system mysteriously shuts down, and we die of one thing or another. Unless, that is, we seek and find redemption. 

Serial killers almost always take greater and greater unnecessary risks until caught. As one famously marked in lipstick on his victim’s mirror: “For God’s sake stop me, before I kill again.” Similarly, regimes that no longer feel they are legitimate begin to act recklessly—as if to see how much they can get away with.

Like picking fights with the voters. How much will they take, the peasants! Let them cancel Disney Plus! Like trimming your toenails or reading a newspaper during parliamentary debate.

The legacy media as a whole also seems to have a death wish. Faced with growing competition due to technology, they have dropped all journalistic standards, anything that might give them a claim to being a superior source, and begun to report only what they feel like. Disney Corporation seems to have developed a death wish. Everything they invest in any longer seems to go directly against their financial interests. Bud Light did: directly insulting their customers, and not backing down. The LA Dodgers did, honouring an anti-Catholic hate group in front of their Hispanic Catholic local community. The LGBTQ et al movement, the trans movement has; “We’re coming for your children.” Probably no further comment necessary. Pope Francis seems to have such a death wish, becoming increasingly open and reckless; as well as a desire to kill off the Catholic Church.

It resembles those times and days when people believed, for one superstitious reason or another, that the end of the world was at hand. A large proportion of them would then just drop everything, any pretense of morality, let the cattle stray, and begin fornicating on the hilltops. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. 

And we already know where we’re going.

I think the conscience of the woke is waking up.

Trudeau Accuses India

 

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

If the Indian government was involved in murdering a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has publicly alleged, it is a very serious matter.

Accordingly, it is a very serious allegation, one the Indian government has denied. India is an important country, the second largest in the world, and the world’s largest democracy. It is a fellow member of the Commonwealth. It is increasingly important not only for trade, especially as the West is trying to decouple from China, but also vital to the other democracies as a potential military ally against China. We cannot afford to pick quarrels with India. It is madness to pick fights with India, unless we are very sure of our allegations.

And Trudeau has no proof—only “credible allegations.” That, in the world of normal diplomacy, is not enough to go public as he has. 

Murder is murder, and people are people, but it is also perhaps worth noting that Trudeau seems to be inflaming the incident by referring to Hardeep Singh Nijjar as a Canadian citizen. It is unclear that he is. He entered Canada illegally on a forged passport in 1997. He then applied for refugee status, and was refused. Eleven days later, he married a Canadian women—what looks like a marriage of convenience. She sponsored him for citizenship. Again he was refused. So it seems he was still in the country illegally when murdered.

He is also, for what it is worth, claimed by India to be the leader of the Khalistan Terror Force and involved in various terrorist acts in that country. He is the subject of an Interpol “notice,” whatever that means.

So he may or may not have been a dangerous criminal. This surely gives the Indian government reason to want to kill him; but it also means people other than the government of India might have had motives for killing him.

Trudeau is acting recklessly.

I suspect it is designed to draw attention away from China’s interference in Canadian elections, and Trudeau and the Liberals’ collusion with that hostile foreign power.

At the same time, it panders to Canada’s large and politically active Sikh population. At Canada’s expense.

The opposition parties sadly will be obliged to play along with Trudeau. Otherwise, they look disloyal. 

It looks to me like an ugly, cynical play.

Trudeaunomics: Lowering Inflation by Raising Taxes

 

Justin Trudeau committed a misstep that may end up in the history books, or at least in the lore of Canadian electoral politics, this week. He threatened the big food chains that, if they did not do something to stop the rising food prices, he would slap a new tax on them.

Raising food prices yet again.

It is an embarrassment that Canadians ever voted for him, but it seems as though everyone is now embarrassed by him. It took an alarmingly long time, but folks generally are at last seeing through his tiresome act. “The Canadian people expect …. They know we have their backs…. And that’s exactly what we will do.”

And the inevitable scapegoating. 

If he's going to be a clown, he could at least be funny.

The only anti-Conservative memes I see recently online are to the effect of “Yeah, what Poilievre says sounds great, but he will not deliver.” And “Don’t vote Tory just because you are mad at the Liberals. Ask Ontario.” 

Neither gives a reason for voting Liberal; both concede that the Liberals are awful. 

Why not vote for the mere chance of something better?

And that cannot be the NDP, who simply support the Liberals.

That so, what’s your alternative?

Who Replaces Trudeau?

 

As Justin Trudeau’s popularity plunges, people begin to talk about his possible successor as leader of the Liberal Party.

Chrystia Freeland is his second in command. But she is too closely identified with him: if his popularity goes down, hers does too. 

The rest of the cabinet does not look much better. The problem is that Trudeau has been relying on a personality cult, and no cabinet ministers have been able to develop a strong independent identity or following. 

Mark Carnet is mentioned. But he looks too much like Michael Ignatieff, vulnerable to charges of being a carpetbagger; and with untested political skills.

There is no obvious candidate that nobody seems to be mentioning: Jody Wilson-Raybould. This actually follows the typical Liberal tradition: a former cabinet minister who has resigned over disagreements with the leader comes back from retirement to take over. So Jean Chretien, John Turner, Paul Martin.

Raybould has earned a reputation for strict honesty and respect for the rules, which would be the antidote for the odour of corruption and overreach left by Trudeau.

She has remained loyal to the party: ejected, she ran not as an NDP or Green candidate, although she had offers. They would have killed to have her. She took the harder path of running as an independent.

Why do the mainstream media not mention her?

It seems sinister.

The Weimar Dominion

 

Justin Trudeau is incompetent, corrupt, and with totalitarian and dictatorial intentions. This is apparent in a dozen ways to Sunday. It is therefore hard to accept that a large body of Canadians has voted for him in three elections, and, according to polls, a large body of Canadians would still vote for him. This does not speak well of the intelligence of Canadians.

It also condemns the Canadian elite. It has always been the Canadian way, unlike the American one, and like the British, to trust those at the top to keep things in good order: the police, the professions, the civil service, the media. In Canada democracy is seen more as a check against possible excess than the fundamental sovereign act.

Accordingly, Trudeau’s ascension to and persistence in power is disillusioning in what it says about the Canadian elites. They have not stopped him, nor pointed out how harmful he is for the nation. Following the Westminster system, there should have been a cabinet revolt long before now—as happened recently to Boris Johnson, or happened in his day to John Diefenbaker. Instead, when Jody Wilson Raybould resigned, only one cabinet member, shamefully, went with her. 

Had that not happened, there should have been a caucus revolt, as took down Erin O’Toole, or Liz Truss, or Theresa May. Prime ministers and party leaders, after all, are supposed to serve at the pleasure of their members.

Had that not happened, the big donors—Bay Street, Power Corp. and such—should have pulled the plug on Liberal Party finances. 

Had that not happened, the party brass, the backroom armies, the volunteers, should have pulled their services to force Trudeau out.

Had that not happened, the press and media mavens should have been pointing out on air and in print how irregular and improper Trudeau’s speeches and measures have been. A few have—Rex Murphy, Conrad Black, a brace in the new media. But where is Andrew Coyne, say, or Chantal Hebert? Even those who do speak out regularly against Trudeau, like John Ivison or Brian Lilley, seem to me on the whole to be soft-pedalling it.

All these systems seem to have failed. How come?

Each of these groups seems to have been acting in their own personal or class interests, in disregard of the greater public interest. If not positively and voluntarily benefitting from logrolling with the regime, everybody found it to their advantage to leave the battle to somebody else.

John Adams said, of the nation he had partly founded, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This is probably true of any system of government: it succeeds or fails mostly on the morality of the people, and of the leadership in particular. The secret to British success over the last few centuries was the strict code of gentlemanliness and “fair play” that had been imbued in the upper classes. Such things are not instinctive, and cannot be presumed. They have to be carefully taught.

We have seen a collapse in morality in Canada and the rest of the West over recent generations—in “conventional morality,” as its opponents call it—and a collapse in moral education. Social collapse is bound to follow.

It can only be averted by a religious revival, which is then applied to the education system.

What's That Smell?

 

Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie have announced their legal separation. I think Trudeau is an awful human being, but as far as his marital situation goes, none of us on the outside can know the rights and wrongs. We should not gloat or take sides. All we can say is that every divorce is a tragedy, and divorce is too frequent in our culture.

Tangentialy related, Viva Frei suggests that Justin Trudeau probably smells bad, and that may have had something to do with the separation. Bad people, he says, generally smell bad.

That is too crazy a comment for me to ever make, but since Viva has raised it, I have always found the same: bad people smell bad. Perhaps not always, but usually. I have often pondered why. Is it because, loving themselves, they also love their own smell, and so do not think much about personal cleanliness? No: I know of one who showered at least once a day, but still stank. Is it because they are chronically nervous, fearing their conscience, and therefore sweat more than the rest of us? This could be; lie detectors work on something like this principle. 

Or is it something supernatural?

After all, good people conversely often smell good. Including, I read, their uncorrupted corpses. This must be more than the absence of perspiration. And I also find that bad people look different: they have a dark, sickly pall about them. I do not mean a dark skin tone-their skin can be quite pale. It is more like shadows on their face. Something about them looks less lifelike, more waxen.

Okay, it sounds crazy. But Viva Frei apparently notices it too. Perhaps others do.

It might be that many others experience this, but it does not register, because they are committed to the belief that there is no such thing as good and bad people.

Muslim Protest in Front of the PMO

 

https://twitter.com/truckdriverpleb/status/1672683426535682056?s=20

https://twitter.com/truckdriverpleb/status/1667193315576487936?s=20

So much for Trudeau's claim that Muslims support secularism and Christianity is anti-Muslim.

As a believing Christian, I actually felt more comfortable in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States than I do in secular Canada.

Trudeau's Truth

 

In this clip, Justin Trudeau shows a notable lack of intelligence. To put the most charitable interpretation on it.

He begins by boasting that he goes by the dictionary definition of words. Then he gets the meaning of the words “misinformation” and “disinformation” confused. He thinks “misinformation” is deliberate, and “disinformation” unintentional.

Here are the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Disinformation: “The dissemination of deliberately false information, esp. when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media.”

Misinformation: “Wrong or misleading information.”

He then proceeds to a logical fallacy. He poses the question, “Who decides what is misinformation or disinformation?” And he responds, “There has to be an acceptance that there are experts out there who create a basis of fact.”

This is the “argumentum ab auctoritate,” or argument from authority. It is really an evasion of the question.

To begin with, what if authorities disagree—as, of course, they always do? By what authority do you choose one authority over another?

Are you going to take the “consensus of experts”? Now you have committed the ad populum fallacy as well, that truth can be arrived at by popular vote. If everyone on Earth voted that the moon was made of green cheese, this could not make the moon green cheese. If nearly everyone thought that the sun goes around the earth—as almost everyone once did—this does not make it true that the sun goes around the earth.

Is a majority more likely to be right than a minority? No. After all, the smartest people are necessarily going to be an absolute minority of the general population.

Second, how do you know that person A is an authority on the matter? What authority vouches for him being an authority? And who vouches for that authority? You are into an infinite regression; an infinite regression of unknown quantities remains an unknown quantity.

Third, authorities, even if genuine, can lie. They will have their own vested interests. To call yourself an authority is to say “just trust me.” One ought to automatically suspect a con.

Fourth, to uncritically accept the word of existing authority brings all science, all human thought and human progress to a halt. If authority is always right, then Galileo was spreading misinformation, as was Newton, or Einstein, or Columbus, or the Wright Brothers, or for that matter Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, or Jesus Christ.

In practice, who would inevitably decide what is and is not disinformation? Trudeau’s bottom line must be government—actually the usual source of disinformation. It must, in short, be him. Government is authority, and therefore gets to decide and declare the experts. Which means by definition the end of democracy and an increasingly authoritarian regime. 

It is terrifying that this man is in any position of power.