Oh no. Maybe everyone should put tariffs on China, then they'll put tariffs on all kinds of fossil fuels. How about Australian coal?
The surprise twist is that his election this time is already helping fix my homeland of soviet canuckistan, though it's scaring the pants off of most Canadians in the meantime.
Trudeau might want to pretend Canada has a perfectly secure border, but people who don't live in his ivory tower know full well that a lot of the gangs and guns come from the US. How did they get here? Very easily it turns out. A lot of people go "only 47lbs of fentanyl were seized!", yeah, the rest made it through.
Florida wins the Stanley cup... Embarrassing for all the states that get snow such as Canada.
I always get a kick out of it when they seamlessly switch from "Trump is a 1945 nazi" to "desu desu to the juice" mid-speech.
And isn't the consensus on the ground that bad 1945 man Trump was instrumental in establishing a currently active cease-fire?
And isn't the consensus on the ground that bad 1945 man Trump was instrumental in establishing a currently active cease-fire?
Issue 1 of the original FBXL Magazine we tried to test this, and I discovered that I can't concentrate on programming when I've been drinking. Instead of programming I kept on playing multiplayer games of diablo 2 instead.
https://fbxl.net/issue1/pui.html
Pretty sure it was 2001-2002.
https://fbxl.net/issue1/pui.html
Pretty sure it was 2001-2002.
I hate to say it, but I think that Donald Trump has proven that you don't need another extra dollar! You just need to let the people who are already in place do their jobs.
In a recent essay, I wrote the following words:
"Institutions would integrate superpositional thinking I think in part by being less bureaucratic. Instead of delegating everything to rules and regulations, give people doing the work some flexibility to try to do the right thing. They can turn out to be wrong, but local decision making is likely going to be more beneficial than universal decision making."
So this article aligns deeply with that, and I like how it's constructed.
Modernism (which still permeates much of what we have left in our world) thinks it can find the perfect objective standards for anything and everything. Postmodernism (which eats away at our civilization) tries to tear down things by proving they are imperfect, and it is typically pointed at things the current bureaucratic powers want gone, not things such as bureaucracy itself. Postmodernism tears down culture which can tell people they're wrong without a rule to tell them so, and it makes everything relative so nobody's really to blame for anything ever so of course postmodern bureaucracy doesn't want to hold anyone responsible for their mistakes (and that doesn't mean firing everyone at the first sign of trouble)
A new way of thinking needs to happen that allows for the fact that things aren't always the same and leaders need responsibility and power to go with their title so they can wisely execute their function as leaders.
"Institutions would integrate superpositional thinking I think in part by being less bureaucratic. Instead of delegating everything to rules and regulations, give people doing the work some flexibility to try to do the right thing. They can turn out to be wrong, but local decision making is likely going to be more beneficial than universal decision making."
So this article aligns deeply with that, and I like how it's constructed.
Modernism (which still permeates much of what we have left in our world) thinks it can find the perfect objective standards for anything and everything. Postmodernism (which eats away at our civilization) tries to tear down things by proving they are imperfect, and it is typically pointed at things the current bureaucratic powers want gone, not things such as bureaucracy itself. Postmodernism tears down culture which can tell people they're wrong without a rule to tell them so, and it makes everything relative so nobody's really to blame for anything ever so of course postmodern bureaucracy doesn't want to hold anyone responsible for their mistakes (and that doesn't mean firing everyone at the first sign of trouble)
A new way of thinking needs to happen that allows for the fact that things aren't always the same and leaders need responsibility and power to go with their title so they can wisely execute their function as leaders.
By guest contributor Peter Thistle.
First, let me say, there is a competency crisis (clickbait, sue me). But the reason for this crisis goes far beyond mere DEI. It lies at the root of managerial and bureaucratic systems themselves; there is a unique mechanism by which bureaucracies distribute responsibility to an asymptotic near-zero at the level of the individual, such that few within any given system are ever punished for their failures. This mechanism can be readily identified by those of us within such systems, and being able to identify and resist such mechanisms, either as a cog within bureaucratic systems or (more importantly) as the authors and builders of new systems, is a skill worth its proverbial weight in gold. It is not possible to design bureaucratic, managerial systems to run autonomously on “policy” without building into them a future of decay into incompetence. Without real command authority and serious consequences for failure (which can only be meted out by leaders who have both authority and responsibility), systems that run on “rules” or “policy” are doomed to fail. As leaders and builders, this is something we have to understand in the core of our being; we have to isolate the nagging liberal priors that would drag us back to rules-based and policy-based organizations.
The recent aviation disaster in Washington, D.C., was a tragedy. Naturally, many commentators pointed out that the reason for the crash will likely be determined as a lack of competency on the part of one or many individuals responsible for safety in aviation, caused in part by DEI policies and lax standards. This is, no doubt, true. However, the problem is not that individuals within the system failed; the problem is the structure of the system itself.
https://oldgloryclub.substack.com/p/its-not-a-competency-crisis
First, let me say, there is a competency crisis (clickbait, sue me). But the reason for this crisis goes far beyond mere DEI. It lies at the root of managerial and bureaucratic systems themselves; there is a unique mechanism by which bureaucracies distribute responsibility to an asymptotic near-zero at the level of the individual, such that few within any given system are ever punished for their failures. This mechanism can be readily identified by those of us within such systems, and being able to identify and resist such mechanisms, either as a cog within bureaucratic systems or (more importantly) as the authors and builders of new systems, is a skill worth its proverbial weight in gold. It is not possible to design bureaucratic, managerial systems to run autonomously on “policy” without building into them a future of decay into incompetence. Without real command authority and serious consequences for failure (which can only be meted out by leaders who have both authority and responsibility), systems that run on “rules” or “policy” are doomed to fail. As leaders and builders, this is something we have to understand in the core of our being; we have to isolate the nagging liberal priors that would drag us back to rules-based and policy-based organizations.
The recent aviation disaster in Washington, D.C., was a tragedy. Naturally, many commentators pointed out that the reason for the crash will likely be determined as a lack of competency on the part of one or many individuals responsible for safety in aviation, caused in part by DEI policies and lax standards. This is, no doubt, true. However, the problem is not that individuals within the system failed; the problem is the structure of the system itself.
https://oldgloryclub.substack.com/p/its-not-a-competency-crisis
Trudeau is literally retarded.
"I don't know why the american president I just spent 10 years shitting on is treating us poorly!"
Maybe it's because you spent 10 years shitting on him? Maybe US presidents don't really like getting shit on unless they're paying some prostitute to do it?
"I don't know why the american president I just spent 10 years shitting on is treating us poorly!"
Maybe it's because you spent 10 years shitting on him? Maybe US presidents don't really like getting shit on unless they're paying some prostitute to do it?
Democracy dies in the darkness they provide
Zerohedges motto was super clever 20 years ago when fight club came out.
Zerohedges motto was super clever 20 years ago when fight club came out.
Europe reminds me of China before the century of humiliation. So sure of their moral superiority That they can just bureaucracy anything they don't like away, but the rest of the world continues to exist.
Honestly, if Trudeau wasn't about to lose power, becoming the 51st state wouldn't look so bad. But I think Canada can recover. We have recovered from Trudeaus in the past.
Some people think the incoming 25% tariffs are Trump bullying Canada and that he didn't expect Trudeau and Canada to fight back.
I'd argue the opposite.
Canada's Liberals are bullies. Massive bullies. They bully their own MPs and ministers, they bully their own people, and when they felt like they could get away with it they bullied the US president. And they spent 10 years spitting on the guy in charge of the United States, And now they're shocked that he is punching back (and he's got a way stronger punch).
We'd be in a totally different scenario if we had a leader like Chretien in charge, he dealt with the bully George W. Bush by being wily and clever, not by trying to out-bully the bully. But that's not how der fuhrer Trudeau functions. He only has one mode, and it doesn't work when he's not the most powerful person in the room. His little toadies only know the same language by the way. Freeland is claiming she should be the next party leader because Trump is afraid of her. I don't believe she has the level of self-deception to actually believe honestly that Trump is scared of her, it's more likely intended to continue the game the liberals have been playing, a stupid game but one that worked well for her until reality hit.
Trump isn't like a native justice minister, Trudeau can't just kick him out of the party for not doing as he's told. He can't tell Trump to sit down and shut up like he did his first secretary. He can't demote Trump like he did to Freeland when she didn't go along with his vote buying scheme late last year. When he's not able to do that, the pathetic nature of his one note bullying becomes clear. In reality, Canada's exports go 70% to the US, and US exports go 13% to Canada. Regardless of whatever power Trudeau pretends to hold, Canada disproportionately will be harmed in a trade war, and Trudeau didn't just win an election on a platform of tariffs. In fact, his political career is nearly over.
There are at least two forms of bullying. One is when a person is on the bottom of the heap and they bully to climb the heap. The other is when the person is at the top of the heap and they bully to try to keep their position at the top. Trudeau's treatment of Trump is the latter. It's similar to how hot girls become mean girls to ensure they stay the top of the roost.
He went out of his way to try to attack and belittle Trump because the president of the united states is obviously more powerful than the prime minister of Canada but Trudeau wanted to stay the cosmopolitan hero to the globalist lib left. The problem is that Trump isn't a woman, and so once he got a real mandate, reality hit like a ton of bricks. The fact is, Canada needs the US more than the US needs Canada, and so a trade war will result in the US winning.
One of the most important keys here is that multiple games are being played that correlate, and Trudeau is only good at one of them, the globalist elite game. His domestic governance has self-evidently gone sour (there's a whole superposition one can analyze there, but I'm simplifying for the purpose of argument as you'd expect given the blurriness heuristic), his global diplomacy has been catastrophic in a number of ways (In terms of diplomacy, Canada's actually made some really bad strides. We're not doing well with China, we're not doing well with India, and those are also great powers we need to be doing somewhat well with), per capita productivity has been in recession for years now, and now trade with the US is facing massive tariffs. Trump is playing more of these games, just not the one Trudeau is good at, but at this moment Trump isn't the same 2016 Trump that Trudeau could just bully because even Trump's own party didn't really support him, in 2025 Trump has laid a lot more groundwork to exercise the power of his office, and so scoffing at him and attacking him doesn't have the same outlook -- but that's the only game Trudeau and his lackeys know how to play. Ironically, in many ways Trudeau is looking more like Trump did in 2016, with a party that doesn't support him, a media that's losing confidence in him, and a new global elite that really opposes him rising.
The right thing would be to quit trying to win the globalist elite game and try instead to start doing better domestically and in terms of the diplomacy game. Chretien had some great stories about convincing George W. Bush not to implement tariffs, "Mr. President you're still eating PEI Potatoes", and I think Poilievre has a good strategy of showing how both Canada and the US can win.
Unfortunately, it's a powerful truth that Trudeau has played every card in his hand to make sure there aren't many options. He prorogued parliament to prevent a spring election (which his platform in 2015 explicitly said he would never do), and so he's basically sitting there on his own until March as the Liberals try to run a leadership campaign prior to the next election in a hail Mary play to try to deal with the catastrophic electoral collapse that polls are suggesting -- the liberals will get to third place, behind the Bloc Quebecois, a regional party with 0 votes outside of the province of Quebec. For such a party to become the official opposition (#2 in seats) as they are projected would be an absolute denouncement of the liberals and NDP who are national parties.
I suspect that this is part of Trump's calculus, basically putting a thumb on the scale of a failing government to help keep things moving towards what will be for him a much friendlier regime in the Conservatives. Unfortunately, that thumb will be a giant deus ex machina for many Canadians until the election can finally take place and some real diplomacy can start. When I say "deus ex machina", I'm invoking the imagery of a giant hand from a machine that imposes power at the end of a story rather than a specific thing that's going to magically end Trudeau when he was actually ok otherwise. The next Liberal leader will have to explain how they can go to (trade) war with the 900lb gorilla and expect to come out victorious, whereas Poilievre is already working to ensure the narrative out of his government is one focusing on mutual benefit in trade.
I fully expect that the Liberals will eventually recover from this current situation, but many smart former liberals are estimating it could take decades. Both the liberals and NDP will need to go back to the drawing board, but I suspect only the liberals will successfully do so, and it'll look like them trying to find a center-left position they used to hold before Trudeau. Unfortunately, they'll be fighting to regain trust the whole way. The NDP by contrast will keep thinking they need to just double down on their current ideas and they just didn't go hard enough.
I fully expect that once Poilievre is in, his new team will be able to talk Trump down from the ledge in part by having policies Trump will agree with, and in part by showing respect to the President instead of immediately talking about how much they hate him. We'll see how much damage is caused in the interim.
I'd argue the opposite.
Canada's Liberals are bullies. Massive bullies. They bully their own MPs and ministers, they bully their own people, and when they felt like they could get away with it they bullied the US president. And they spent 10 years spitting on the guy in charge of the United States, And now they're shocked that he is punching back (and he's got a way stronger punch).
We'd be in a totally different scenario if we had a leader like Chretien in charge, he dealt with the bully George W. Bush by being wily and clever, not by trying to out-bully the bully. But that's not how der fuhrer Trudeau functions. He only has one mode, and it doesn't work when he's not the most powerful person in the room. His little toadies only know the same language by the way. Freeland is claiming she should be the next party leader because Trump is afraid of her. I don't believe she has the level of self-deception to actually believe honestly that Trump is scared of her, it's more likely intended to continue the game the liberals have been playing, a stupid game but one that worked well for her until reality hit.
Trump isn't like a native justice minister, Trudeau can't just kick him out of the party for not doing as he's told. He can't tell Trump to sit down and shut up like he did his first secretary. He can't demote Trump like he did to Freeland when she didn't go along with his vote buying scheme late last year. When he's not able to do that, the pathetic nature of his one note bullying becomes clear. In reality, Canada's exports go 70% to the US, and US exports go 13% to Canada. Regardless of whatever power Trudeau pretends to hold, Canada disproportionately will be harmed in a trade war, and Trudeau didn't just win an election on a platform of tariffs. In fact, his political career is nearly over.
There are at least two forms of bullying. One is when a person is on the bottom of the heap and they bully to climb the heap. The other is when the person is at the top of the heap and they bully to try to keep their position at the top. Trudeau's treatment of Trump is the latter. It's similar to how hot girls become mean girls to ensure they stay the top of the roost.
He went out of his way to try to attack and belittle Trump because the president of the united states is obviously more powerful than the prime minister of Canada but Trudeau wanted to stay the cosmopolitan hero to the globalist lib left. The problem is that Trump isn't a woman, and so once he got a real mandate, reality hit like a ton of bricks. The fact is, Canada needs the US more than the US needs Canada, and so a trade war will result in the US winning.
One of the most important keys here is that multiple games are being played that correlate, and Trudeau is only good at one of them, the globalist elite game. His domestic governance has self-evidently gone sour (there's a whole superposition one can analyze there, but I'm simplifying for the purpose of argument as you'd expect given the blurriness heuristic), his global diplomacy has been catastrophic in a number of ways (In terms of diplomacy, Canada's actually made some really bad strides. We're not doing well with China, we're not doing well with India, and those are also great powers we need to be doing somewhat well with), per capita productivity has been in recession for years now, and now trade with the US is facing massive tariffs. Trump is playing more of these games, just not the one Trudeau is good at, but at this moment Trump isn't the same 2016 Trump that Trudeau could just bully because even Trump's own party didn't really support him, in 2025 Trump has laid a lot more groundwork to exercise the power of his office, and so scoffing at him and attacking him doesn't have the same outlook -- but that's the only game Trudeau and his lackeys know how to play. Ironically, in many ways Trudeau is looking more like Trump did in 2016, with a party that doesn't support him, a media that's losing confidence in him, and a new global elite that really opposes him rising.
The right thing would be to quit trying to win the globalist elite game and try instead to start doing better domestically and in terms of the diplomacy game. Chretien had some great stories about convincing George W. Bush not to implement tariffs, "Mr. President you're still eating PEI Potatoes", and I think Poilievre has a good strategy of showing how both Canada and the US can win.
Unfortunately, it's a powerful truth that Trudeau has played every card in his hand to make sure there aren't many options. He prorogued parliament to prevent a spring election (which his platform in 2015 explicitly said he would never do), and so he's basically sitting there on his own until March as the Liberals try to run a leadership campaign prior to the next election in a hail Mary play to try to deal with the catastrophic electoral collapse that polls are suggesting -- the liberals will get to third place, behind the Bloc Quebecois, a regional party with 0 votes outside of the province of Quebec. For such a party to become the official opposition (#2 in seats) as they are projected would be an absolute denouncement of the liberals and NDP who are national parties.
I suspect that this is part of Trump's calculus, basically putting a thumb on the scale of a failing government to help keep things moving towards what will be for him a much friendlier regime in the Conservatives. Unfortunately, that thumb will be a giant deus ex machina for many Canadians until the election can finally take place and some real diplomacy can start. When I say "deus ex machina", I'm invoking the imagery of a giant hand from a machine that imposes power at the end of a story rather than a specific thing that's going to magically end Trudeau when he was actually ok otherwise. The next Liberal leader will have to explain how they can go to (trade) war with the 900lb gorilla and expect to come out victorious, whereas Poilievre is already working to ensure the narrative out of his government is one focusing on mutual benefit in trade.
I fully expect that the Liberals will eventually recover from this current situation, but many smart former liberals are estimating it could take decades. Both the liberals and NDP will need to go back to the drawing board, but I suspect only the liberals will successfully do so, and it'll look like them trying to find a center-left position they used to hold before Trudeau. Unfortunately, they'll be fighting to regain trust the whole way. The NDP by contrast will keep thinking they need to just double down on their current ideas and they just didn't go hard enough.
I fully expect that once Poilievre is in, his new team will be able to talk Trump down from the ledge in part by having policies Trump will agree with, and in part by showing respect to the President instead of immediately talking about how much they hate him. We'll see how much damage is caused in the interim.