My Trump Derangement Syndrome

Tim Pool is scorning Megyn Kelly, MTG, and Alex Jones for recently contracting Trump derangement syndrome. The rest of us know how to tame Trump, right? Seriously, but not literally. It is all rhetoric and deal-making.

I’d scorn these turncoats too, except I think I could easily contract Trump Derangement Syndrome myself. Trump has always worried me. I did not support him for the Republican nomination in 2016 or in 2024. 

The left had and has been breaking all the rules and conventions of civil life. They have, quite literally, been denying being bound by reality itself. It became necessary to bring in someone tough enough to crack a few skulls in hopes of restoring order. Once one side in the discourse ignores the rules, the other side must as well, or be steamrolled. I remember saying to a leftist friend in 2016, that they on the left were primarily responsible for Trump. 

The danger is obvious. Once the rules are lost, and you have elected someone with a mandate to break the rules, there is nothing restraining this leader from going too far, from imposing his own will instead of the old rules. There is no predicting where he will stop. I therefore watch Trump warily.

Unfortunately, the parallel with Hitler is obvious. As in the woke postmodern West, things got out of hand in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. It was social, economic, and moral chaos. A lot of German voters turned to Hitler because he seemed to have the strength of will to sort it all out, and some vague plan to do so. At first, like Trump, it seemed he was doing a great job. But that same strong will, unsurprisingly, turned out to know no bounds.

Trump is obviously interested in leaving a personal legacy. Harmless when it involves building a new White House East Wing, or a victory arch across the river in Arlington. Venezuela might have been reckless, but it turned out well. ICE may be acting a bit fast and loose, but something had to be done. Iran seems justified, but is a bigger gamble. I fear that Trump is just going to keep taking on bigger challenges and rolling the dice until he loses. And it may turn out to be costly for the US and the world.

We’re all between a rock and a hard place.

Turtle Island

Image from India of the world turtle

A pet peeve of mine is hearing people refer to Canada, or North America, as “Turtle Island.” This is supposed to be the traditional Indian name for it, and a nod to native people as the original owners of the land.

But this is absurd. The Indians would have had no concept of what a continent is. This is an arbitrary Greek geographical classification. They would not have known they were surrounded by seas. Nor, of course, would they have had any concept of Canada with its present boundaries.

Nor, as is often pointed out, did they have any concept of land ownership. Different bands roamed through the same territories, with no fixed address.

It is common around the world to imagine the ordered universe is borne on the back of a turtle—you see this in steles in China. The turtle with his hard shell, rising from the water, represents order, solidity, and life emerging from formless chaos. Not a geographical concept, a cosmological one.

Some native cultures may well have used this concept to explain the universe. But native cultures were diverse. There are other creation myths. For those who did, Europe and Europeans would have been just as much residents and owners of Turtle Island as the next tribe—or their own.

Dief Will Be Chief Again

I once saw Diefenbaker in person at a Grey Cup game. In high school, I wrote an essay on him. Yet like everyone around me, I thought he was a joke as Canadian prime minister. A blowhard, and a sophist as a speaker.

Yet it seems to me now that Diefenbaker was right about most things. And he would be just what Canada needs right now. In his day, like Trump, he fought against the bureaucracy, what we now call the Deep State or the blob. “Everyone is against me but the people.” In the end, the Deep State, along with the “Laurentian elite,” managed to beat him. They labelled him a “Renegade in Power,” just as they have tried to do with Trump. At the time, I bought the con. He was before his time. Had he won through then, things might be much better now. 

He spoke for the West, for just one thing. Western alienation has only gotten much worse since, for being ignored. It now threatens to end the country. 

He fought for human rights—now being critically lost in Canada. His Canadian Bill of Rights was far superior to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that superseded and largely subverted it. He led the charge for human rights internationally too. 

And he led the charge for human equality and against multiculturalism. His great final battle cry was for “One Canada” and “no hyphenated Canadians.” We went down the opposite path, and it was the wrong path.

Many, of course, are angry at him for cancelling the Avro Arrow. I think this is mostly a matter of myth. I suspect his was the right decision, that this project was a pipe dream.

Most significantly, Dief was a true leader. He did not go with the polls nor the cocktail circuit commentariat. He had principles. And, like Trump, he had the tools to lead: he was a great rhetorician. He was always entertaining to listen to. He kept things interesting.

We need his like again.

The Coming Death of Canada

 

Read it and weep. My SubStack.

Canada: The Death of a Nation

 

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time 

Is Canada finished? I see this claim frequently now online. I want to be optimistic, but I fear that may be right. 

We cannot be complacent. Nations can go backwards. Bad government can wreck a nation. In 1979, Iran might have had limited freedoms, but it seemed to be on a path to more, and was on a par economically with Spain. It has become poorer and less free. Venezuela under Chavez managed to descend into poverty to the point of starvation despite sitting on an ocean of oil. Once-prosperous Rhodesia fell apart as Zimbabwe under Mugabe. South Africa is falling apart now, from the First World to the Third. Until the 1930s, Argentina was one of the world’s top ten economies. Cuba was prosperous before 1960.

It can happen; it does happen. It can happen to Canada. I think it is happening.

Canada has since 2015 had a disastrously bad government. And there is no sign of it ending soon. Carney is about to gain a majority in parliament, through defections and byelections, allowing him to do as he wishes for the next four years. Worse, even were a vote held today, polls show he would win a majority government. Canada’s last chance may have been the election of Spring 2025—and we blew it.

Democracy is supposed to be the check against bad government. But it does not always work, and is not working here. Hitler was democratically elected in Germany. Chavez was democratically elected in Venezuela. Peron was the people’s choice in Argentina. The average voter is not that smart; their prejudices can be appealed to. They can be gulled. And then they wake up only when it is too late, and future elections have been cancelled.

Carney’s policies continue Trudeau’s policies, and they are disastrous. Canada’s prosperity depends on trade with the US. Carney has not made a trade deal with the US. It seems that he does not want to. His policy seems to be to deliberately antagonize the US: “elbows up.” Castro’s policy. One is reminded of Johnson’s adage that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

His government, with its hostility to oil and gas, has hobbled Canada’s chief potential source of wealth. This has of course alienated Alberta and Saskatchewan, where this industry dominates. And now it seems increasingly likely that Alberta will vote to separate from Canada. If it does, Canada will have lost its cash cow, and its bargaining power in making any future trade deals. The rest of Canada will be further impoverished. Other provinces may be driven to separate.

The various Canadian governments’ and courts’ growing concept of “aboriginal rights” is also on a trajectory to destroy the economy, by throwing property rights into doubt, by preventing resource development without big payoffs to this vested interest, and by shovelling increasing amounts of money into an unproductive black hole. It is like a vampire on the national neck.

The growth of government bureaucracy in general since Trudeau took power is unsustainable. A large government is parasitical on the economy. Ibn Khaldun analyzed this clearly back in the 14th century. This is how nations and civilizations always fall.

Based purely on the value of Canada’s resources alone, every Canadian is worth about one million dollars. It is a measure of how bad and parasitic our government is that we are instead worth a fraction of that individually and facing a declining standard of living.

The Canadian Liberal governments have also pursued the suicidal twin policies of multiculturalism and mass immigration more energetically than the governments of Europe. Europe is now waking up to the fact that this was a mistake, for the sake of civil order, cultural identity, quality of life, and even economically. French or British commentators are saying it may be too late now to save themselves. If so, Canada is further down that road to doom.

The gurus of the technical world are predicting that most jobs will be obsolete within a few years. If they are right, aside from the problems of strained housing supply and medical services and the like, and aside from the disintegration of social cohesion, aside from the rising rates of crime and deterioration of quality of life as Canada goes from a high-trust to a low-trust society, aside from the harm done to a distinct Canadian culture, each new immigrant must soon become a ward of the state, a net cost to everyone already here. 

At the same time that it has been doing its best to destroy the economy, the Canadian governments have been growing more authoritarian, less respectful of human rights and the citizenry. The most disturbing example is the invocation of the Emergency Act against the Freedom Convoy, freezing the assets of citizens who expressed opposition to the government. This was done in violation of the Canadian Constitution, the relevant legislation, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But here’s the clincher—there is no mechanism to punish those in charge. Canadian governments are simply on their honour in this regard. And they lack honour. We have now the established precedent that Canadian governments can do this whenever they like.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a dead letter in any case. It is supposed to guarantee freedom of expression, for example. Yet this is ignored by the legislatures and the courts, to the extend that it has even become the conventional wisdom that Canada does not, like the US, have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. We do; it is just that,  like the old constitution of the Soviet Union, or that of Communist China, the Canadian charter exists only for show.

The government had introduced bill after bill imposing censorship, most recently Bill C-9, which makes citizens subject to two years in prison even for quoting in good faith a passage from the Bible to which the government objects. The media is effectively owned by the government, either formally or through massive subsidy, ensuring there is no free discussion of issues or ideas. Domestic news is otherwise effectively blocked online for those lacking a VPN—as it is in China, or in Saudi Arabia.

Never might the lack of freedom of speech; or freedom of religion; or freedom of association; or freedom of assembly; all of which are now effectively gone in Canada. The right to life, the most fundamental right, is also denied: through government-funded unrestricted abortion on demand, and through a slippery slope to encouraging and assisting suicide for the depressed, disabled, ill, or poor. This is, literally, how Hitler started; it ended in the Holocaust.

The Canadian courts, like the legislatures, ignore the Charter of Rights and instead impose their will. They systematically discriminate on the basis of race, sex, and ethnicity. This assertion is not based only on statistical evidence: they make this open and explicit in their “Gladue rules.” The government discriminates in every conceivable way, in favour of preferred groups and against the fundamental principle of human equality and equal protection under the law. There is special funding or special hiring rules for black groups, for aboriginal groups, for women, for recent immigrants, for gays, and so forth.

On top of this, and on top of alienating the US, Canadian foreign policy seems to have become a disaster. Once on good terms with almost everybody, recent Canadian governments have picked unnecessary fights. Communist China seems to have infiltrated the Canadian government. Their success is indicated by the fact that the Carney government is doing whatever it can to block investigation of the matter. They are owned. And government policies now seem to favour China’s interests over the interests of Canadians. 

At this point, I think our only hope may be invasion from the US. Perhaps once Trump is done with Iran and Cuba, Canada will be next on his list. 

It would be better than the alternative we seem to face.

Why Canada Can't Get a Trade Deal with the US

The US government has just released a new list of trade irritants preventing a new trade deal with Canada. It reveals the crucial point that the US is negotiating in the best interests of Canadians, and the Canadian government is our worst enemy.

As summarized by ChatGPT, Canada’s system of “supply management” is the prime irritant. It artificially jacks up the price of essential staples like dairy and eggs, for the benefit of a few thousand agribusinesses. Here especially Canadians should be cheering for the US government. Supply management sacrifices the interests of ordinary Canadians for corporate benefit. Trump wants to help us with affordable food.

Next in the ChatGPT list is “Canada’s Online News Act,” that “requires large platforms to pay Canadian media.” This is in practice a censorship bill, limiting Canadians’ access to news and information about Canada, again for the benefit of a few favoured businesses. This is just about the opposite of what a responsible government should be doing. Canadians should be cheering for the US government.

Third on the list is “government procurement policies favouring Canadian suppliers.” The fix is simple. Canada has in the past protested US “buy American” policies. It is only fair that this work both ways. If both countries go instead to “buy North American,” it is a net benefit to Canada: the US has the larger market. And it means cheaper government procurement, a cost savings for taxpayers. Once again, the US government is negotiating in the Canadian national interest, and the Canadian government is working against us as Canadians, for the sake of handouts to a wealthy elite.

Fourth on the list is Canadian cultural and media protections: “Canada’s support for domestic cultural industries (broadcasting, publishing, etc.)” Presumably a big chunk of that is Canadian government subsidies and direct funding to the CBC and news media. These subsidies are again against the Canadian national interest: they tend to restrict public discourse, turning news media into government propaganda outlets. 

One can argue for supporting a distinct Canadian culture, for government support to poetry, dance, the visual arts, and the like. But I doubt this is the US objection, since US governments do this too. Moreover, at present, government funding for the arts in Canada is actually doing the opposite, with systemic preference for artistic expressions that are NOT distinctly Canadian, under the banner of “multiculturalism.” Such expenditures are directly counter to the Canadian national interest. Again, patriotic Canadians who want the best for Canada must cheer for the American negotiators.

Next in line are “Laws requiring French-language labelling and branding adjustments.” One can sympathize with the desire of French-Canadians to preserve their language. However, there is no question that this is a serious barrier to enterprises wanting to sell consumer products into Canada—and not just US enterprises. Even Canadian enterprises. Everything must be specially repackaged for Canada, a relatively small market. This limits choices and boosts prices for the Canadian consumer. Is the game really worth the candle? Can’t this be left to the free market, and Francophones and sympathizers left to vote with their wallet?

Next is agricultural and food regulations. I do not think there would be any serious risk to the health of Canadians by simply entering into full compliance with US food regulations—something the members of the EU have done among themselves. It is not as though the US is some corrupt Third-World country without effective government supervision. It is not as if the US government is likely to play fast and loose with the health of their own citizens. If this is really a sticking point for Canadian negotiators, one almost has to assume they are using these regulations as a covert barrier to trade, as the Americans claim—once again to reward business cronies qt the cost of average Canadians.

Now we come to the enforcement of intellectual property rights. “Rules affecting digital content and streaming.” Here I think the Canadian system is better. The American regime gives more rights to the producer, and fewer to the consumer. However, the US side apparently cites this as a minor irritant—and mostly a matter of enforcement. Whatever... 

Next, the US cites regulatory complexity, especially with regard to resource industries. Again, the Americans are arguing for the best interests of Canadians. Simplifying and streamlining regulatory processes would be a big boost to our economy and our prosperity. Given Canada’s resource wealth, every single Canadian actually should, on paper, be a millionaire. That we are so far from this is a measure of how badly government overregulation is holding us back. 

Then there is the longstanding matter of softwood lumber. The US claims the Canadian system in effect subsidizes Canadian lumber. What then is the problem? Do we, indeed, want to subsidize lumber going to the US with our taxpayer dollars? Why not get full value? Suppose this means fewer exports. Is there no value in allowing some trees to remain standing? Do we not want to preserve more forest cover? Allow for more carbon capture? Even if we do not, no value, no money, is lost, by conserving the resource. The value of the lumber remains in the tree to be exploited later. Other than subsidizing specific businesses, why should the Canadian government have a problem here?

In sum, the real problem here is that we Canadians are suckers easily exploited by cynical politicians appealing to a juvenile anti-Americanism. Elbows up, indeed.

Avi Lewis as NDP Leader

 

The Canadian NDP has just selected Avi Lewis as their new leader. All the pundits, predictably, are calling this a big mistake. He was the furthest left of the available candidates. They say he cannot possibly expand their voting base.

This is their idee fixe, that everyone should run to the middle. This does not work in a time when people are genuinely upset with government. This does not work in a revolutionary period. Consider Ronald Reagan—he was the farthest right candidate for the Republicans in 1980. And he swept the electoral college. 

Right now, voters everywhere are demanding change. Consider the relative success recently of parties of the far left and far right. The Greens, Reform, and Restore in the UK. Trump, Sanders and Mamdani in the US. Meloni, Takaichi, Milei and the like. Granted, the surge is stronger on the far right than the far left, but both are surging. It might even be true that without appealing to the moderate middle the NDP can never win a majority, or enough support to form a government. But that was never a realistic goal for the NDP. Their reason d’etre is to be a protest party.

If the NDP moves to the middle, they simply overlap the Liberals. Why would a moderate then vote NDP, who have no history of ever winning government, over the Liberals, Canada’s “natural governing party”? If the policy proposals are more or less the same, it makes no sense.

Moreover, that is the very strategy recently pursued by Jagmeet Singh; we see the results. The NDP becomes irrelevant.