The Coming Death of Canada

"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair."

Like everyone else, I am bad at predicting the future. But I think Alberta will vote to separate from Canada this fall. Chaos will ensue.

The Canadian government, and the majority of Canadians, have been indulging in the deadly sin of pride. They have made concessions to Quebec to dampen down separatist sentiment; but consider Albertans beneath their notice. How should this make Albertans feel? They are not being taken seriously. Ottawa seems to consider Alberta a colony. Central Canada is taking advantage of Alberta’s resources, while at the same time hobbling Alberta’s economy for the benefit of the rest of the country. And they fairly openly flaunt their view that Alberta has no right to complain. Prime Minister Carney has been quoted as saying, if Alberta votes to separate, he will declare the Emergencies Act.

That sounds like a dare. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that Albertans will vote for independence purely for self-respect, quite aside from the practical benefits. Which are fairly obvious: the ability to keep the oil revenue locally, the ability to sell more oil to the US, the ability to escape the huge transfer payments to the rest of Canada—Alberta is demonstrably getting less than it pays for—and the ability to pass the legislation the people of Alberta want. They are politically significantly to the right of the rest of Canada.

It is shockingly prideful of the central government, and eastern Canadians, to assume they will not. It is as if the feds are just demanding submission.

Albertans have a strong bargaining chip. If Ottawa refuses to negotiate separation, with Trump is still in office, or with a MAGA successor, the Americans are likely to back the separatist movement, for the sake of access to Alberta’s oil. If the central government moves against them, America would have the green light to intervene, as when Russia moved against an independent Ukraine, or as if China moved against Taiwan.

And if Alberta goes, the temptation will be strong for Saskatchewan to go as well. And without big transfer payments, perhaps Quebec as well...and then the impoverished Maritimes might feel the need to petition the US for annexation.

This involves another example of Canada’s current arrogance: Canadians and the Canadian government act as though they can stand up to the USA, “elbows up,” as though the two countries are roughly equals in economic and in military power. This is tragicomic. Again, they are as much as daring the US to prove them wrong.

This arrogance is not new. Canada’s foreign policy in the last decade and more, under Justin Trudeau, has been recklessly arrogant; under Trudeau, and now under Carney, Canadian governments have lectured and picked fights with the US, India, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. They have acted as though Canada were a world power. Carney has now actually declared his readiness to take over leadership of the free world.

Nor can I blame the government alone. Canadians elected them. Ordinary Canadians too seem supremely confident that their current prosperity and personal freedoms is simply deserved, inalienable, and cannot possibly be lost.

If there is justice on the earth and in the heavens--and there is--Canada is heading for disaster.

Why Women Can't Find Any Real Men Any More

 Read about it on our SubStack--free. And subscribe!

The Face that Launched a Thousand Divorces

Do We Now Know Trump Is the AntiChrist?

 

Find out on our SubStack, and subscribe. It's free.

Why Thomas Should Not Doubt

 Read it on our SubStack.

Why Catholics Pray Before Statues

 Read it on SubStack.

Gladu the Liberal

 

Gladu

Marilyn Gladu, previously known as a “far-right” Conservative member of parliament, has now crossed the floor to join the Liberals.

What this tells us is that politicians generally do not have principles. They only adopt the positions they think will win them power. They are all members of the same club. This floor crossing may be a watershed moment: the moment many Canadians gave up on the political system. It looks as though voting is just a con.

At the best of times, important change cannot be accomplished though politics. With few exceptions, politicians just follow the polls. The education system and academics are captive to those currently in command; change cannot come from there either.

A better future can only be done, if it can be done, either through private initiative, though business and engineering, and by changing the culture. Material progress can change the frame of reference. Songs, books, and movies can connect with people not only on a rational, but on an emotional and an imaginative level. This changes minds, which changes polls, which changes the positions of the politicians.

Trump might be an exception here—he is not a politician. Poilievre, the Conservative leader, however, although a fine rhetorician, in the end is a politician. There is talk that his leadership is now in trouble, due to floor crossing. If the Conservatives do want to replace him, they must pull in someone from outside politics to counter this growing public cynicism.

 

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.

Whither Canada?

 

Morgentaler

Bill C-9 has now passed the Canadian House of Commons and is going to the Senate. It removes the religious exemption from the charge of hate. One can now be sent to prison for two years for quoting scripture, if the passage goes against current government views.

At this point, I wonder if Canada is redeemable. I wonder whether I live in Sodom and Gomorrah, or in Canaan. Indeed, I have wondered this since Henry Morgentaler was given the Order of Canada in 2008. How can I feel true patriot love for a country that formally honours someone for killing children? And actually in violation of the law of the day? How can I honour a nation that dishonours itself?

How can I honour a country that now allows unrestricted abortion? How can I tolerate allegiance to a country that will put the poor, the sick or the elderly to death? How can I revere a country that does not recognize private property, a government that freezes people’s bank accounts? This is all National Socialism only barely warmed over. This violates the terms of the social contract under which we can give allegiance to any government, as outlined in the American Declaration of Independence: government exists to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. If a government, like the current Canadian government, instead violates our right to life, our freedom of speech, or our property rights, our duty is to overturn it.

I don’t even see, at this point, how electing a Conservative government could save Canada. 

Canada cannot become again a free country, firstly, unless all the “hate laws” are repealed, and the right to free expression as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is at last honoured, as it is in the USA.

This much can be done. Euthanasia can be rescinded. Abortion can be criminalized. But I doubt the CPC or the electorate itself has the will. And the democratic will does not in itself equal freedom: Hitler in Germany was democratically elected.

As with Europe, Canadian culture and society is being flooded with mass immigration. It is madness, at the very time that the futurists and the high-tech mavens are advising that within a few years most human jobs will be obsolete. All new immigrants are potentially public charges.

We ought also, at that, to promote assimilation, not multiculturalism; the Canadian social fabric is fraying, not to mention access to basic services. But here we face a bigger problem: multiculturalism is actually enshrined in the constitution. Worse, the Canadian constitution is almost impossible to amend. 

We must also, urgently, end any fiction of aboriginal land title or special aboriginal rights. It doesn’t just hobble resource development, impoverishing the country: the courts have declared that aboriginal title supersedes private property. This cannot stand; nor can the basic notion of two classes of citizens with different rights. 

Unfortunately, again, aboriginal rights are enshrined in our current constitution, almost impossible to amend.

More generally, the authority given by the current constitution to the Canadian Supreme Court to reject, overturn, or demand, legislation of our elected bodies, is a violation of our democratic and our human rights. It is autocratic rule by an unelected clique. 

But this too cannot be corrected given our constitution.

Accordingly, we seem to face only three ways to save what we can of Canada as a free country. The first is revolution; but revolutions are always dangerous, and rarely turn out well. When you throw the royal sceptre in the street, there is no telling who will pick it up. The second is deconfederation: provinces could either go their own with their own new constitution, or separate in order to negotiate new terms of union. But this would require years of tumult, dislocation, and uncertainty. And the third is a takeover by a foreign power—most obviously, the US. They might impose a new constitution or governing system, as they did once for Japan. Or they might allow us to enter their union—and be given its protection for our rights.

Looking at each of the options, the one that seems surest, safest, and least painful is the last.

Just sayin’.

In Defense of Tobacco and Alcohol

 

My Chinese student had an interesting thought. With alcohol and tobacco made so expensive by government fiat in a place like Canada, what can the average Canadian do to escape their stress? It seems to him a cruel tax on the poor: those who cannot afford a vacation in Acapulco or a yacht or summer cottage or the like.

This prompts a second thought: is this in part why we have a growing crisis with fentanyl, suicide, self-harm, social discord, sudden violence, and “mental illness”? Because we have restricted access to relatively safe and less expensive opiates? 

Yes, we have marijuana expensively but extensively available. But cannabis has a different effect. Yes, we have growing access to video games. But these are not that calming; more exciting.

It is a strength of Chinese culture that they are sensitive to stress and its amelioration. I believe we in European and American culture are lousy at it. We ought to take some lessons here. Worth considering, at least.

The Solo Christian

Please check it out on SubStack. No charge--hoping you will subscribe to our stream.

Kharg Island

There is much talk of the US seizing Iran’s Kharg Island. This makes sense; it gives the Americans control of Iran’s oil exports. Were I the Americans, though, I’d want three more islands: Qeshm, Hormuz, and Larak. These are in the Straits of Hormuz. The US could establish permanent bases there, and be able to control the Straits from then on, like the British at Gibraltar or, back in the day, Singapore. No more nonsense about the British, or the Qataris, or the Emiratis, not allowing them to use their bases on their territory.

Religious Extremism Is Not the Problem

 

Find out why at our SubStack feed--and subscribe!

On Speaking in Tongues: The Real and the Bogus

 Go to SubStack, read the article, and subscribe. It's free!

New Poetry Anthology

 

Today is Nowruz, the Iranian New Year celebration. And also the publication date for a new poetry anthology of poems in support of the current Iranian uprising. One of mine is included.

I urge all and sundry to order their own copy immediately. Show your support! At the link:

Where Words Defeat Bullets – Asemana Books

The Imperative of Art

 Check it out on our SubStack feed--and subscribe. It's free.

The Chucklehead Doctrine

 

I got this YouTube video forwarded by a leftist friend of mine. This guy never discusses politics. So this might be a sign that things are close to the breaking point on the left, in terms of their frustration with the outrageous actions of Trump.

I add my responses.

“America falsified history in order to advance its proud history of pushing its weight around...”

The history of the US is mostly one of isolationism—of avoiding engagement in foreign alliances or foreign wars. This has been the backbone of American polity since Washington. The US avoided empire during the period of hectic colonizing, in contrast to the nations of Europe. It could have owned all of the Western hemisphere.

America became engaged in the wider world reluctantly with the First World War, then reluctantly with the Second, and then with the Cold War; since the British and French were prostrate, and there was nobody else left to defend democracy. 

Notably, it is remarkable that over the many decades since 1812 the US has not ever “pushed its weight around” by trying to annex Canada with all its resources. As the Canadian military admits, it could do so in about two days.

“US participation in Vietnam was ‘ignoring allies, ignoring history...’”

The US became engaged in Vietnam in defense of an ally, the Republic of Vietnam. Among allies who fought at their side: France, Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, New Zealand, Cambodia, Laos. They were diplomatically supported by the UK, who had just fought a similar action in Malaysia, and most other NATO countries.

“Millions dead, and they still called it peace with honour."

The US did not start the war in Vietnam, and so cannot be blamed for the body count. There is no way of knowing whether more or fewer would have died in the region without US involvement. Only fewer Americans.

Iraq - "allies begging them not to invade." 

Allies who participated militarily in the invasion: UK, Australia, Poland, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Ukraine.

Around 45–49 countries supported the coalition in some way. The worst that can be said is that it did not have official UN approval. Which the UN has only given for military action five times in its history. Hard to get that, with Russia and China having vetoes.

"UN inspectors saying ' look, there's nothing there.'"

UN inspectors did not declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. They onl6 said they had not found any yet. Iraq had been refusing inspections, in violation of the ceasefire. They had finally allowed the inspectors in under threat of war.

Climate change—the rest of the world supposedly tackled the problem while the US "threw snowballs in the Senate."

US carbon emissions fell 20% from 2005 to 2023-- 30% per capita. Not as quickly as Europe, but much faster than other major emitters.

Over the same period, China’s and India’s emissions have been growing sharply.

Claim that “the American government is bringing drugs and crime into Canada.”

This is false, in that he blames the American government, who are not involved. It is true that drugs and crime are flowing both ways across that border, and it is true that there is more coming into Canada from the US than into the US from Canada. That is neither here nor there: the US government is of course more concerned with the flow south. They are cracking down on their borders, and they want Canada to do the same.

Giving Sight to the Blind

 

A few mysteries of John chapter 9.

Laughing at Jesus on the Cross

 Okay, you're gonna have to check us out on SubStack to see what that is about. I dare you!

Americans Killing Little Girls in Iran

 Much is being made of the US supposedly bombing the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in Iran.

Stop and think for a moment. Is there any way it would be in the American interest to bomb a school in Iran? They are hoping for the local population to rise up against the regime. It would be perfect counter-productive, sheerly in terms of self-interest.

If the US is responsible, therefore, it has to have been a tragic mistake.

This certainly might have been a missile misfire, from either side. If a misfire, however, this is intrinsically more likely from the Iranian side, since American and Israeli missiles seem to be highly accurate in finding their targets. Iranian missiles, by their own admission, frequently hit civilian targets in neutral countries by error throughout the Gulf.

It is also obviously in the interests of the Iranian government to bomb a school in Iran, if they think they can pin it on the Americans. If you were going to do this for propaganda purposes, you would choose an elementary school. You would choose a girls’ school. Maximum sympathy, maximum outrage.

Is it too much to suppose the IRGC and the mullahs would do this to their own people? 

Why, when they have been shooting them down in the streets?

Why Not the UN?

 

While empires are obviously a good idea, why is it that the EU is failing, the UN is so ineffective at stopping wars, and the League of Nations a notorious failure? Shouldn’t they be even better at preserving peace than any Empire, because more inclusive and more voluntary; and aren’t they more democratic and equitable?

The obvious answer is that these bodies have no Royal Navy nor Roman Legion nor Mounted Police. They have no enforcement arm. 

But that is not the only problem. That said, I would be uncomfortable with the UN or EU having an enforcement arm. They lack moral authority. They are not genuinely democratic, so they lack the mandate of the people. The British or the Roman Empire at least had to answer to their own citizenry; those in power could not run amok. And they lack shared governing values or principles. Without this moral constitution, they become a pork-barrelling among vested interests, inevitably to the detriment of the common man.

To one day have one world government, we will probably first need to have one world religion. Whether or not it is referred to as a religion, that is what it would be: a shared set of values, of principles of government. Confucian values held the large Chinese Empire together. Christian values did well for the Romans, and then Christendom; the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, and to a large extent the British. Lockean liberal values, as enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence, has done well early for the Brits and in more recent years for the large American confederation. But the attempt to internationalize them has come upon adamant opposition from some quarters, notably the Marxist and the Muslim worlds.

Failing this emergence of one world religion, the next best option is empire; or a confederation of co-religionists.

The Case for Empire

 

A friend laments the horrors of war. He thinks that surely mankind can do better than this.

Steven Pinker has shown that over the course of history, wars have indeed become more rare and human lives less violent. In a hunter gatherer society, war is a constant, more or less against everybody. As government spreads, violence declines—that is pretty much the reason for a government. So city states are less violent than tribes, and nation states are less violent than city states. 

And empires are less violent than nations. Empires oddly get a bum rap. They are the height of human civilization. They are the highest level of social organization achieved.

Europe was prosperous and at relative peace for the duration of the Roman Empire—the Pax Romana. The period of peace permitted rapid development in technology, infrastructure, philosophy, and the arts. Things got a lot uglier for centuries after it fell; the “Dark Ages.”

There was a similar and broader Pax Britannica between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI. During this period Britain was so dominant it could act as the world’s policeman. There were certainly breaches of the peace: the American Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion. This was generally in places where the British chose not to intervene. But the point and mandate of the British Empire, and other European empires of the time, was to preserve and protect trade, build infrastructure, and improve general prosperity. At the same time, Britain aggressively advanced human rights, intervening to end the slave trade and such practices as human sacrifice and widow burning. And the period of relative peace and prosperity allowed great advances again in culture, technology, infrastructure, philosophy, and the arts.

In broad historic terms, in Yeats’s words

All teeth were drawn, all ancient tricks unlearned,
And a great army but a showy thing;
What matter that no cannon had been turned
Into a ploughshare? Parliament and king
Thought that unless a little powder burned
The trumpeters might burst with trumpeting
And yet it lack all glory; and perchance
The guardsmen's drowsy chargers would not prance.

It was a great tragedy that the British Empire, and the other European empires, collapsed during and as a result of the First World War. We suffered through the Second World War and the Cold War; although it is hard to argue against a hypothetical, one can easily imagine that things could have gone better since 1920 in the arts, which seem increasingly moribund; and for all we know better in technology, in quality of life, and in general prosperity. There were a lot of new inventions in the steampunk 19th century: the steam engine, the railroad, the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, the telegraph, the camera, the submarine, the movie camera.... For all the smartphones and apps and lasers, are there really as many and as diverse ones now?

We are doing better than we might due to relative US dominance. Domestically, as a large and peaceful entity, the US has been able to foster the civilizational best in the arts, the culture, technology, and in human thought since the middle of the 20th century. Although without a formal empire, it has been strong enough to act at times as the world’s policeman, reducing strife elsewhere.

What exactly is the argument against empire? Simply that the people in charge at the top will not have the same skin colour or ethnic background as yourself? That is racism. What matters is that they are competent,  honest, and fair to all.

The danger is a hegemon or Empire that is rapacious, oppressive, or immoral. Not all empires are equal. We would not want the Japanese Empire, which dealt ruthlessly with subject populations. We would not want the Carthaginian Empire, which practiced child sacrifice. We would not want the Nazis to dominate the world. We would not want Kim Jong Un, or the CCP, or the Iranian mullahs.

That being so, probably the most honourable strategy for anyone who is genuinely and sincerely concerned with human welfare, as well as a general decline in war and violence in the world, is to support Donald Trump in his current push for greater US power. The US is the one nation in the best position to quickly become a world hegemon. It is also—let’s be honest--a nation unusually unlikely, given its history as the homeland of liberal democracy, to become oppressive or discriminatory or rapacious in this role. 

So if you are genuinely a lover of all mankind, and against war and violence, you should back Trump in his demands for Greenland, in his bombing of Iran, in his taking of Maduro, and indeed if he wants to annex Canada. 

It is our best hope for our grandchildren.

The Recessional

 It is heartbreaking how far the United Kingdom has fallen. The independence of Ireland was a blow. The fall of Singapore was a blow. The withdrawal from India was a huge blow. Suez was a TKO. Hong Kong is gone. But that was not the end of it. Now, the mighty Royal Navy is not even capable of sending a frigate to defend their base in Cyprus. Greece has sent two frigates; Spain is sending one. France is sending an aircraft carrier. The UK has nothing: a helpless mendicant. Global humiliation.

There seems a good chance that Northern Ireland will vote in a few years to rejoin Ireland. Demographics demands it, and economics makes it irresistible. There is a lively separatist movement in Scotland. And the native population of England is being replaced by immigrants. 

Will anything be left in fifty years?

It is pitiable.

Perhaps once you have had a mighty empire, it is not possible to just subside back into comfortable significance. A dynamic has been set up, a growing avalanche of morale that cannot be satisfied by mere respectability, but demands self-sabotage. 

Spain, after all, went from global dominance to being a European backwater for a couple of centuries. Western Rome did not retreat back into Italy and become a nation-state. It vaporized, and Italy formed into city-states. Babylon, Assyria, Carthage, the Mayans, Akkad, the Khmers, the Incas; when they left, they did not leave large or deep footprints.

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
   Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

Is the Attack on Iran Just?

Is America’s and Israel’s attack on Iran a just war?

According to Catholic teaching, to be justifiable a war must 

1. Be in a just cause 

2. Be a last resort 

3. Have a good probability of success 

4. Target an evil worse than war itself 

5. Be waged by legitimate government authority.

Let’s check them off one by one.

Be in a just cause.

Nominally, the war is waged to take out Iran’s nuclear and missile capacity before they develop a nuclear weapon, making them invulnerable. This seems to me just because defensive. Iran has declared its intent to destroy Israel. They have sponsored ongoing attacks by proxy forces—in effect, they are already conducting aggressive war.

Unofficially, the war is also waged to give the Iranian people an opportunity for freedom from an oppressive government.

Be a last resort.

Trump made a show of trying to negotiate an end to the missile and nuclear programs in recent weeks. The Americans claim the Iranians would not concede much.

This might have been window dressing, or a misdirection, but it does not matter. The Americans have negotiated for years, trying to get Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons. The Iranians just kept breaking the deals.

According to the Israelis, the Iranians were within weeks of having a bomb. According to the Americans, the Iranians actually boasted they already had enough enriched uranium to make eleven bombs.

So there was no longer any time left for diplomacy. It was indeed, if these reports are true, a last resort.

Have a good probability of success.

The proof of the pudding is this: the Americans and Israelis have so far indeed been spectacularly successful, in taking out the Iranian leadership, taking out the Iranian air force, taking out the Iranian navy, in just five days of sorties. Success seems in sight.

Target an evil worse than war itself.

The casualty list from this action so far is reportedly about one thousand Iranians. This must be tallied up against Iran’s record of killing about fifty thousand of their own civilians over the last month or so, the tolls from their sponsorship of terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East over the years, and the possible casualties from an eventual nuclear exchange with Israel.

Be waged by legitimate government authority. 

Obviously, Trump and Netanyahu are legitimate government authorities. Doubly legitimate in that they were democratically elected, an so have a popular mandate.

There Is a War

 Check it out on our SubStack.

The Need for an American Empire

 

The refusal by Britain to allow the US to use their air bases in the UK for the current attack on Iran, the similar refusal by the Gulf States, and the controversy over turning Diego Garcia over to Mauritius, makes a strong case for Trump that the US needs to own Greenland. As this shows us, in a crunch, simply having bases there is not enough.

Iran in Flames

 

Because I am among those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, I endorse the current Israeli and American attack on Iran. I question the morality of those who do not.

Whatever happens now, the ability of Israel to kill the Supreme Leader and 40 high officials in a first strike in broad daylight is decisive. Together with the arrest of Maduro in Venezuela, this must give any world leader pause who wants to pick a fight with the USA. It won’t be his faceless soldiers who die for him, as in older days—he will directly face the consequences. 

This has to be good news. War may now be close to unthinkable.

Given this apparent capability, from now on, the US calls the shots—perhaps without casualties on the American side. 

At least so long as nobody else has this capability. Russia proved it did not in its invasion of the Ukraine—instead of a surgical strike, it turned into brutal trench warfare. Could China do better?

Even if they could, this ability to target the top does not naturally lead to aggressive war. It would not be very useful for taking territory. It would not enable China, for example, to take Taiwan. It is obviously most effective against dictators. It won’t work agains a democracy.

As to what happens next, the Iranian drone and missile attacks on civilian targets in the Gulf states, on Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, are signs of collapse. They make no strategic sense; Iran at the moment does not need more enemies. It looks like desperation, the desperation of the suicide bomber. It is a regime in its death throes, thrashing about. They need to use those missiles somewhere quickly, or lose the chance. It is better to go out with a bang than a whimper. 

I do not assume this will provoke the participation of the Saudi or UAE air forces in the current conflict. But if it does, I believe they are formidable. I have lived in the Gulf. Every young man there dreams of becoming a pilot. And they may want to become involved, now that they have been attacked, for the sake of national honour. These are proud nations.

I do not expect the current Iranian regime of mullahs to survive this.

Brave New World

 

Where I came in...

I was early into the computer revolution—1979. I was developing software soon after. I felt then that people did not recognize the significance of the desktop computer. It seemed to me this was a technological advance comparable to the invention of movable type—an improvement in the dissemination of knowledge that led to the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Age of Exploration, European dominance of the globe, the invention of empirical science, the general recognition of human rights, the collapse of feudalism, and democracy.

Then came the Internet and the World Wide Web. This was even bigger. Now I thought we were seeing an innovation comparable to the invention of writing. An improvement in the dissemination of knowledge that brought mankind out of the Stone Age into civilization.

But we were not done. Now we have, apparently, AI, something I did not think was possible. This seems comparable in its impact to the development of language itself. Which more or less marks the rise of the human as a being above the animals.

And these three new advances are happening within one lifetime. The first three took hundreds of thousands of years.

It is no surprise that the world seems to be in tumult. How could it not be? This is the most significant period in the history of the human race.

Here’s the good news: the average human life became hugely better with the discovery of language. Human life became incomparably better with the development of writing. Human life became incomparably better with the development of printing. We can assume that these innovations in turn will make life inconceivably better.

So it seems reasonable for Elon Musk to predict a time in the near future when we will all be wealthy, by current standards, perhaps without needing to work at all. The computer revolution and the internet revolution have already made many things that used to be expensive free or almost free; consider how many costly things your smartphone has replaced. 

If so, the spectre of pension funds running out of money is not real. We will have the ability to give everyone a pension, at any age. The government deficits we worry about may be buried in rapid GDP growth.

This means, in turn, that the recent drive by governments throughout the developed world towards mass immigration is gravely short-sighted. We will soon not need more people to do the work at lower skill levels, and will not need their taxes to fund government or pensions. The only factor limiting growth will be labour, but resources. While it may not be difficult to support a larger population, the disruption to the local culture and civil order would not be worth it.

Is the Left Collapsing in Real Time?

 The left seems to be experiencing cognitive dissonance. A poet friend, politics well to the left, responded to the release of the Epstein files with these lines:

Individuality, 
Sinful seed that 
It is, discounted 
From the congress, 
Shell game intent 
Leads us towards 
Discord & murder.

He blames the Epstein pedophile cult on “individuality.” 

Individuality was obviously not a feature of these crimes. That would be, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer. This was a group—a cabal, a conspiracy. But this presumably does not fit in with the leftist world view: that the collective is good by its nature and even gets to determine good and evil; while the individual and individualism is bad.

The Epstein Hellfire Club is actually the perfect application of the left-wing postmodern idea that reality, and morality, are "social constructs." By these lights, the Little Saint James crowd had every right to decide among themselves that, for them, there was nothing wrong or immoral about pedophilia, or cannibalism, or rape, or murder. QED

In the same discussion, he then condemns globalization as “colonialism nouveau.”

This seems to be to be pulling away from the leftist line. Isn’t the left in favour of globalization? After all, Trump is famously opposed to it. And logically, they should be: it is the ultimate in collectivization. The ultimate move away from the individual.

It seems incoherent. Perhaps he is mulling things through in his own mind. He may be turning into an individual.

Lead Us Not into Translation....

 

Read it on our Substack--and subscribe.

A Proposed American Empire

 

Trump openly wants Greenland. He says he wants Canada. 

Canada and Greenland would make the US the world’s largest country, rich in resources it can easily defend. To be honest, it makes sense, and would probably be best for all concerned. I can’t imagine why I would resist being annexed to the US.

Who else should be allowed in? What might an American Empire look like?

They should also annex Cuba. Cuba is not culturally similar. But it would be a mercy. And Cuba is a good forward base in the Caribbean. 

They should annex Guyana—rich in resources, culturally compatible, and a footprint in South America.

Other Caribbean islands do not seem worth the trouble—they would be welfare cases. Except perhaps for the Bahamas.

America should annex Singapore—culturally compatible, and a vital choke point and military base between the Middle East and Far East.

They should annex Australia and New Zealand, for their resources and simply because they are essentially the same ethnicity. Just as China lays claim to Taiwan, it makes no sense for the Anglosphere to be split into separate countries any longer, given our vastly advanced communications and transportation.

On the same principle, the US should form a union with Britain and Ireland. Together again at last. This gives them their forward base for Europe. I think Ireland would be game to come in so long as the US was the dominant partner, and not the UK. This would at the same time solve the problem of Irish reunification and the Northern Irish border. Win-win-win.

They should also annex Malta—they wanted to join the UK decades ago, and they are a strategic point in the Mediterranean. 

The invitation should be extended to the Philippines. Everyone there speaks English to some extent, they are Christian, and they generally embrace American values. Granted, they would be an economic burden, at least at first, but if America needs more population, the Philippines are an ideal source. And they are a great forward base for dealing with troubles in East Asia.

Serious consideration might be given as well to inviting Denmark—another strategic point, at the entrance to the Baltic Sea. 

I realize, of course, that most Canadians would say I am speaking treason. I say the charge is silly.

Zero Tolerance for Criticism

 

Friend Xerxes writes of a recent visit to a clinic, and notes in passing “The clinic had the usual signs posted, that they would not tolerate abusive speech or action directed at the staff.”

As this illustrates, these signs have become ubiquitous in Canada. And they make me deeply uneasy. You do not see such signs in the Philippines, or Saudi Arabia, or Korea. 

Is it because Canadians are more inclined to be rude or abusive than these other nationalities?

Of course not. Canadians are notoriously polite.

This is a power move. The entrenched civil service, what they call in the USA the Deep State, or in the UK “the blob,” is asserting their sovereign authority. Letting us know who is really in charge. They are reminding the common people of their place.

This is what fascism is, in practice. It is the government bureaucrats asserting absolute power. People do not see it, because they are blinded by Marxist theory. They imagine the struggle for power is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bureaucrats can masquerade as the supposed vanguard or defenders of the proletariat against those “greedy capitalists.” Who may be Jewish.

Canadians are far down the road to fascism, without seeming to know it. 

Whither Truth?

The priest officiating at the mass I attended this morning warned us that, according to Jesus, if we have anything against our brother, we are to leave our offering at the altar, and first go and reconcile with him.

What the gospel actually says is

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.”

Do you see the difference? He has inverted the meaning of the passage. 

This is characteristic of Satan’s work: he inverts the truth. And he seems to be in control of much of the modern church. As Pail VI said, the smoke of Satan has penetrated the Vatican itself. The modern church embraces sin, and condemns feelings of guilt. Hitler was right, by implication; the Jews were wrong.

A friend laments that we just can’t trust anyone any more. How do we know what we are doing is right? You can’t trust your parish priest; he might be a gay pedophile. You can’t trust the church hierarchy; she knows of McCarrick. The late Pope Francis was an apostate. If you can’t even trust the pope, what’s left?

I suggested the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“How do we even know the Bible is reliable? The Ethiopian Bible has different books!”

Why do I think the Bible is reliable?

1. God’s existence is undeniable.

2. God is by his essential nature good.

3. A good God would not leave us without direction.

4. His “user manual” would be most obvious and in plain sight.

5. The Bible is the most universally recognized “user manual”—older and more widely endorsed than any other holy book or scripture. And by the best minds.

6. Therefore, it can be assumed to be the final authority on what is true.

By “The Bible” I mean, by the logic of the argument, the Catholic Bible, since it is the most generally accepted. But that is really neither here nor there, since the books contained in the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Ethiopian bibles do not contradict one another. They can all be completely true. Other scriptures of other religions can be, and logically are, mostly true as well.

I hold the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be reliable in turn because, following the same train of logic, Jesus sets up the apostolic succession, and says “the gates of hell will not prevail against you.” So any doctrine the church universally and firmly holds must be true, secondarily to the Bible.

America Derangement Syndromw

 

Just as many Americans on the left seem to suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” I think Canadians almost all suffer from a similar malady, America Derangement Syndrome. It is not quite scapegoating—it is not that they see the USA as the source of all bad things that happen in Canada. But at the same time, they cannot, will not, see or say anything good about the US. Like Trump, America must always be treated with scorn.

In both cases it looks to me like a class thing. It is a looking down one’s nose. Leftists see Trump as boorish. Canadians see Americans the same way. In Canada, one establishes one’s own status by being particularly offended by their raucous behaviour.

Of course, the average Canadian is economically worse off than the average American. This makes the need to make a fuss over supposed breaches of good breeding that much greater—it is all one has to establish one’s own superiority. 

Canadians pay dearly for this social affectation, but I the end it holds the country together. Canada as a whole would be better off joining the US. Individual Canadians would be better off getting US citizenship. Canada exists only as a refusal to be American; it is treason, therefore, to say anything good about America.

Looked at squarely, it is absurd. Yet, on the other hand, I love the rules and the Canadian politeness. And I do find Trump unsettlingly boorish.

What Poilievre Should Say in the Next Election

Here’s my suggestion for how Poilievre should handle the Trump issue in the next election; a proposed speech.

“My friends and fellow Canadians; let us remember how lucky we are to be Canadians; to have this beautiful land as our inheritance. Just look around you. The Rocky Mountains; Niagara; the thundering Fraser; the vast prairies; the great white north; the bays and fishing grounds of the longest coastline in the world. Our ancestors handed down to us the second-largest piece of real estate in the world. A land rich in arable land, rich in minerals, rich in oil,  potash, natural gas, rich in fresh water and fish and hydro power. Our geography protects us on three sides from invasion by vast oceans. And on the fourth side--right next door to the largest and wealthiest market in the world. A pretty good place to set up shop.

 It would be hard to mess this up. But the Liberals are doing their best. We are beginning to feel the consequences. In rising costs of living, rising regional resentments, rising ethnic tensions, rising rates of violence, and economic stagnation. In the housing crisis and the health care crisis. In our weekly food bills and rent or mortgage payments, and in our rising taxes.

And their alibi is Donald Trump. It’s all Trump’s fault. A convenient scapegoat.

Trump’s an easy target. Canadians are painstakingly polite. Canadians always say sorry, and care about the feelings of others. Trump is rude. He has bad manners. He says hurtful things. This obviously rubs Canadians the wrong way.

Friends, this is simple to understand. Trump is from the boroughs of New York City, from Queens. Just as Canadians are polite, that is the way New Yorkers are. Let’s not be hoodwinked by prejudice. Trump is mostly bark, not bite. We should be sophisticated enough, with our multicultural heritage, to see this, and use it to our advantage.

We are lucky to have the United States as our neighbour. It is the key to our own prosperity. No other nation can replace the US as our chief market. And it is good to be on good terms with your customers.

And the US has been a good neighbour. Since 1815, despite the world’s longest border, they have not tried to annex us. They have not fired in anger. Compare the many wars of Europe. We have lived together in peace and prosperity, to great mutual benefit. Would you rather live in Africa or the Middle East?

Not only have they never attacked us; America has been the great protector of our own freedoms—and the liberty of the rest of the world. Along with the British parliamentary tradition, the American federal structure, their representative government, and their Bill of Rights, were largely the model for confederation, responsible government, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

They led and won the Cold War against Communism on behalf of the democracies. They were the critical factor in taking down Hitler and the Holocaust. They came to the rescue of the other democracies at the critical moment in the First World War. They have led the fight against Islamist terrorism. We have fought side by side with our American brothers many times; and do not suppose this was some favour to the Americans. Our interests, as free peoples, are the same. 

How can we even think of, say, cozying up to Beijing to spite America? A CCP guilty of genocide as we speak? A CCP that has held Canadians hostage, that tries to bully Canadian citizens here in Canada?

And a CCP that declares the right to annex Taiwan, simply because they are ethnically similar. On these grounds, the US could claim a right to annex Canada. Do we really want to ally with the annexationists and annexationism, against our friends and loyal neighbours?

The idea seems treasonous. Yet this is Carney’s clever idea.

And the Americans are just people like us. We are brothers and cousins—often literally. Many of use have spent winters in Florida or Arizona. Many have worked or studied there, most of use have visited. We all listen to Drake, and Celine Dion, and Neil Young. We all laugh to Jim Carrey, Catherine O’Hara, and Norm MacDonald. It is unnatural to be at odds with our family members and neighbours. And it is impolite. With good will, we can work out this little argument over the strength of a figurative fence.

Carney and the Liberals do not understand Trump. Or they are cynically pretending not to, to stir up panic. Don’t be fooled. Trump is using negotiating tactics. Our panic is to his advantage. We do understand him. Jamil Jivani knows JD Vance personally.

I propose we lower our elbows. That is not the Canadian way, has never been the Canadian way. We are a polite people. We are a nation that plays for the Lady Byng Trophy. What other sport but hockey has such a trophy, for gentlemanly conduct? Elbows down, my friends, elbows down. Free trade between our two nations is in the best interests of both, and so it should be easy, with good will, to come to a new agreement. We want freer trade.

Let us play to our strengths. Let us approach the United States in friendship, and seek sunny ways. Let us not be like Trump, but like Canadians."