Bookmark this, come back to it after Le Don is out, the 🇺🇸 economy is broken (thanks to “Liberation Day” 😉) & the Technocrats across the west use that as leverage to win & claw back everything they lost, circa the late 2020s to early 2030s… 😘
Canadian nationalism was defeated after Prime Minister Diefenbaker, and there are some lighter resurgences. Sadly technocracy and a global population are taking over.
& here’s the thing- Nationalists in other western nations have demonstrated this past decade that their lofty promises are too pie in the sky & that when it comes to governance & statecraft… they can’t “deliver the goods” (case in point- mass migration chugs along even after populists get elected).
🇨🇦 is simply a harbinger of things to come… namely the total defeat of this “populist revolution” which began circa 2015-2016.
I am a first time reader and I find your post to be very thought provoking as well as disturbing. There's a definite ring of truth in most of what you say and although I hate to resort to jingoism Canadians and Brits are hardly the same as Americans. We have a tendency to hold, hold then explode as evidenced by "when a long train of abuses and
usurpations.." Don't count us out just yet. We will not go quietly.
Read this essay by Sir Blue Vir, who does a far better job than I do here ( & elsewhere) regarding why the 21st century won't be filled with people 'fighting back' but instead it will be filled with people who *DO* quietly fade into the night:
Unpopular opinion: if Pierre had won everything said in this article would have remained true.
In a sense Carney is the less bad alternative, because he is not controlled opposition. He's completely open about what he is. Canadians can and will push back when his reign sinks in, whereas they would have been placated under Pierre, and the machinery would have continued unabated.
Correct, Pierre would not have stopped Mass Migration (or anything else) & would have continued the 'downward spiral' ad nauseam for the nation.
I disagree when you say there will be 'push back' against Carney... people have been saying this for over a decade, & instead what they do is engage in apathy & indifference.
I will link Sir Blue Vir's excellent essay where he makes a definitive case for why (& I agree with his assessmenrt) you wont be saying much in the way of 'armed revolution' (or revolution, period) in the 21st century, given shifts in Demography, Ideology, etc:
This is the most viscerally haunting piece I’ve read on The West’s utter carelessness…
They offered us bread and circuses.
And we gobbled it right up.
We allowed this.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.
White America must now formally collectivize in OUR own interests putting aside our cherished individualism for as long as it takes to save our race and country.
As a Brazilian that lives in Europe and read a lot about the US, I thi k you are right. Indeed, all the noise made by anti-establishment parties or politicians seems to sink nowadays. There are many reasons (incompetence, lack of strategy), but the major one is that the state is so powerful that you can't t really change its structure radically.
It's no longer about 'State Power’ it's about 'Peoples' weakness' & the fact that most people prefer boredom, apathy & exhaustion as opposed to constantly being angry, incensed & whatnot regarding their societies.
The reason I expect Populism to gradually fade away in the coming years & decades has less to do with 'How powerful governments are' (this is actually not entirely true) & has more to do with the composition of the Masses of Peoples 'at the bottom.'
II was writing this commentary in a bus and I think I wasn't quite clear about what I mean by "state power". The thing that really amazes me about the contemporary state is not its power (let's say, putting people in jail, protecting borders), but it's size and how a large group of society is totally dependent upon the state. I would say that at least 60% of the "educated class" lives from the state nowadays (bureaucrats and indirect bureaucrats, lawyers for ex.). Then, all the people that receive resources from the state (the poor, the old, the lazy etc.). And then, of course, the very rich and powerful are totally connected to the system.
So, in my view, even if a radical upheaval of the state structure could, in the long run, be positive (which is something uncertain), there are so many stakeholders, from so many different social and economic status, that the costs are too high. The structure is bloated but almost everyone is sucking from it, so the price to pay is indeed very high. I see this in Argentina, f. ex. There, the government tries to tackle ancient distortions caused by public policies that are quite harmful, but the immediate price to pay is so high that all the energy and political will fades quite quickly.
I respect Quais a lot as an intelligent observer of the political scene, but he is mistaken. Canada is a special case. Apart from one Quebec-based populist party that gets good numbers. Canada never had either a right-wing faction in the Conservative Party or even a mild populist-nationalist english-speaking party. Carney's opponent Pollieve, while a little edgy, is certainly not either a nationalist or populist Nationalist. Canada's self-image and identity is entirely establishment Leftist. The last right-winger in major office was Duplesse, the Quebec Premier who left office in 1959. Countries like the US,UK France and Britian always have had dissenting political groups, even if they were unsuccessful and incompetent. Except for "two men and a dog" operations like that of Paul Fromm (a very nice man BTW) there have been no general right-wing movements in Canada post-1959.
Agreed very special case. It’s never a good idea to predict a trend from a single data point, but in this case the single data point is barely on the graph.
Canada is always about a decade or so behind the US. There might be hope yet. Or Alberta will leave Canada and join US and then maybe other western provinces. Then just Eastern Canada will be cooked
Conclusion seems a little premature. Canadian populism was only thwarted by Trump's crude style. People voted for liberals in protest, but the Canadian results aren't particularly important. Let's see how things develop in Europe. It seems the globalist elites are resorting to strong measures to stay in power.
Well, we have 10 years of data to draw from, so I don’t think it’s premature for me to say that boredom, apathy & indifference are winning over 😡, zeal & whatnot 😉
I disagree that the 🇨🇦 results aren’t important… 🇨🇦 is a key energy & minerals player in the global market so them going to the globalists is a key development, regardless of what people say otherwise 😊
Agreed with you that 🇪🇺 is still “up in the air” for a lot of these guys… but the trends indicate to me at least that the era of “populist rebellion” is over & in its place we will see capitulation to the technocrats, oligarchs & managerial elite 😉
Also I’d like to comment on the Canadian issue. The “Conservatives” in Canada lost because of how watered down they were. “Axe the tax” doesnt win anymore. Pierre Poilievre is to left of Mitt Romney to put it into perspective.
“Axe the Tax” is the consensus post-WW2 of ‘what the right-wing should be’. The Right consistently tried to distance itself from nationalism and populism after WW2 by shifting its focus towards economics (free market, trickle down economics, etc).
When there was no opposition to cultural issues, the Left kept winning the culture war. It is why you have boomers who will rather have their kids mutilated before being called racist (they still have gotten both despite their appeasement).
Poilievre, who talks and acts like a snake oil salesman, was regurgitating post-WW2 ideological rhetoric, cringely parading in a Sikh turban, and barely focusing on the fact that the country is getting flooded with third worlders and everything is unaffordable because of them.
Result? He lost the elections, and he also lost his OWN seat in the parliament. It’s funny and super deserved.
I’ll restate this from another comment because it is relevant to what has been mentioned 😉:
>> Carney won because his platform was boring, stable & predictable.
Even if Pierre had campaigned on “mass deportations”… which is the PPC platform btw (check out how well they did in this election cycle!😆)… he would have been soundly defeated 😊
That’s the thing you don’t get: the “repel the invaders! 😡 “ sales pitch doesn’t actually jive with most westerners. Yes, people want stronger border controls, but they don’t want weird ethnic cleansing-lite in lieu of today’s weird open borders policies 😊 <<
Every top 3 party in nearly every country in Europe is a populist party.
You know what keeps them alive?
The fact that the left and the liberals have gone so deep in their ‘gay race communism’ that they can’t walk back without losing major support of the leftist hive-mind voter base. Democrats in the US still want to transition kids, without understanding that thats a big portion of what got them to lose in November.
The more everyone from far left to center-right keeps insisting on importing millions of third-worlders, and the more the center-right parties lie (such as CDU in Germany), the more the parties of the hard right and far right will rise. A decline will happen even to Reform UK if they keep bending. The people crave a non-apologetic, populist party.
Trump went from saying only legal immigration, to wanting to curb that too. And the majority Republicans are perfectly fine with it. Now imagine in Europe.
Meanwhile, every right-leaning party that isn’t populistic, nationalistic is losing voters and is carried by boomers.
I never comment on here, but I read a lot of blogs. This is by far the most retarded thing I’ve read. Judging by your name, nobody should take your takes on the Western Right too seriously. You seem to be seething and angry of the fact that Europe refuses to turn into a sharia law infested hellhole.
You’re correct about the fact that “the letter people” keep populism alive.
What you’re wrong about is the implication behind that, given the historical record on what happens to the “revolution” even when their foes are weak:
You think that because the opponent is naive and irrelevant that the revolutionary army will win.
(Narrator’s voice: Nope! 😊🤭)
What I am saying in this piece is that the “gay race communists” don’t HAVE TO win… they simply need to ignore, trundle along & sedate people per usual with their drivel.
After all, why break something that already works? 😉 😘
Apathy, indifference & boredom Win the day… not zeal, passion & 😡… 😂
Well, then it’s a matter of the fact that the derailment of Europe boils down to the French Revolution. If liberalism is put to stop, it has to be a huge change in reality itself. Our concepts of everything are those of liberal democracy and classical liberalism. It was the consensus after the French Revolution, and brutally enforced after WW2.
The place that adopted liberalism the first (even before the French) was the US, and it will also be the place to first get rid of it.
“Liberalism being put to a stop” doesn’t mean by default that populism wins.
The point of this piece is to highlight that Carney won precisely because there is no positive alternative vision that populists provide to liberalism that is (1) capable of mass governance, (2) something the lions share of people in these western societies want & (3) is something that is biophysically possible to implement in a realistic fashion.
If you don’t have ALL of (1) through (3)… sorry, but it doesn’t matter if liberalism is “fake & ghey” ( I agree with this btw 😉) … apathy, boredom & drift will then win 😊
I wrote in a separate comment why Carney won. It’s got nothing to do with any of this that you mentioned. It’s pretty simple actually.
If Pierre campaigned on mass deportations early on, just as Trump did, it would end differently. That would happen only if Pierre wasnt Pierre, who is untrustable and gives off a meek energy.
Carney won because his platform was boring, stable & predictable.
Even if Pierre had campaigned on “mass deportations”… which is the PPC platform btw (check out how well they did in this election cycle!😆)… he would have been soundly defeated 😊
That’s the thing you don’t get: the “repel the invaders! 😡 “ sales pitch doesn’t actually jive with most westerners. Yes, people want stronger border controls, but they don’t want weird ethnic cleansing-lite in lieu of today’s weird open borders policies 😊
To mention Boris J. as one of the main leaders of the pure populist right (right next to Bolsonaro!) is absurd. Also, while I agree that the movement has lost a lot of steam in some nations, it has certainly (thankfully) gained in others. The vanguard needs to give the movement a new shot of adrenaline.
He was critical for Brexit (alongside Farage) seeing 'the Light of Day,' so it's not a mistake to say that he is a key Populist figure, even if some think he isn't 'pure enough.'
It's not just 'some nations,' most variations of Populism are on the way out across the West. They may get one final Dead Cat Bounce (thereby actually winning a few more elections here & there), but the general tendency is the same everywhere:
Once they get access to Genuine Power & Influence, they are incapable of Statecraft & Governance, given the nature of the Lofty promises they make & how chaotic, nonsensical & unrealistic they are to not just implement but to simply pursue.
Case in point, Le Don's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs:
He is simultaneously nuking Supply Chains, The Bond Markets & American Manufacturing. By the Decade's end to the early 2030s, this will mean permanent, longstanding damage done to America's productive sector.
This is not a man who (let's be real here) will become 'dynastic.'
More likely scenario? He suffers a fate similar to Nixon & has to resign OR he is ousted, given the way in which he is imploding & destroying his own society.
That's the thing with Populism... it cannot govern. & the libtards (for all their Letter people ideology & other nonsense) are certainly incompetent & sleazy... but they CAN govern, albeit it's a very dull, broken & dissatisfactory leadership.
The first signs of populism you note were when they thought voting could win. Now (hopefully) they know better, and are moving on to what comes after populism isn't allowed to win at the ballot box.
I am a first time reader and I find your post to be very thought provoking as well as disturbing. There's a definite ring of truth in most of what you say and although I hate to resort to jingoism Canadians and Brits are hardly the same as Americans. We have a tendency to hold, hold then explode as evidenced by "when a long train of abuses and
usurpations.." Don't count us out just yet. We will not go quietly.
The former is more unhinged than the latter, given the fact that during the trade war 1.0 circa 2018… there was still an understanding that too much nonsense would impact alliance structures, supply chains & bond markets.
This time around? 🔥 it all to the ground, Xhosa cattle killing style 😂
We just put in Trump. Canada never had a populist right. Dumb post.
Bookmark this, come back to it after Le Don is out, the 🇺🇸 economy is broken (thanks to “Liberation Day” 😉) & the Technocrats across the west use that as leverage to win & claw back everything they lost, circa the late 2020s to early 2030s… 😘
Canadian nationalism was defeated after Prime Minister Diefenbaker, and there are some lighter resurgences. Sadly technocracy and a global population are taking over.
Correct.
& here’s the thing- Nationalists in other western nations have demonstrated this past decade that their lofty promises are too pie in the sky & that when it comes to governance & statecraft… they can’t “deliver the goods” (case in point- mass migration chugs along even after populists get elected).
🇨🇦 is simply a harbinger of things to come… namely the total defeat of this “populist revolution” which began circa 2015-2016.
I am a first time reader and I find your post to be very thought provoking as well as disturbing. There's a definite ring of truth in most of what you say and although I hate to resort to jingoism Canadians and Brits are hardly the same as Americans. We have a tendency to hold, hold then explode as evidenced by "when a long train of abuses and
usurpations.." Don't count us out just yet. We will not go quietly.
Read this essay by Sir Blue Vir, who does a far better job than I do here ( & elsewhere) regarding why the 21st century won't be filled with people 'fighting back' but instead it will be filled with people who *DO* quietly fade into the night:
https://bluevir.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-revolution-only
"There Will Be No Revolution, Only Breakdown"
Thank you. He makes quite a lot of sense about the peasants. In America even the poor have cell phones and cable tv!
Unpopular opinion: if Pierre had won everything said in this article would have remained true.
In a sense Carney is the less bad alternative, because he is not controlled opposition. He's completely open about what he is. Canadians can and will push back when his reign sinks in, whereas they would have been placated under Pierre, and the machinery would have continued unabated.
Correct, Pierre would not have stopped Mass Migration (or anything else) & would have continued the 'downward spiral' ad nauseam for the nation.
I disagree when you say there will be 'push back' against Carney... people have been saying this for over a decade, & instead what they do is engage in apathy & indifference.
I will link Sir Blue Vir's excellent essay where he makes a definitive case for why (& I agree with his assessmenrt) you wont be saying much in the way of 'armed revolution' (or revolution, period) in the 21st century, given shifts in Demography, Ideology, etc:
https://bluevir.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-revolution-only
"There will be No Revolution, Only Breakdown"
This is the most viscerally haunting piece I’ve read on The West’s utter carelessness…
They offered us bread and circuses.
And we gobbled it right up.
We allowed this.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.
White America must now formally collectivize in OUR own interests putting aside our cherished individualism for as long as it takes to save our race and country.
It’s now or never.
The door is nearly shut.
Come home White man.
gonorthwest.info
Thank you for the Kind words, especially the compliments re: the delivery of the piece & its overall impact. 😎
Yeah, cuz everyone knows that Canada sets the tone for trends in world politics! 😅
Retarded.
🇨🇦 is simply a harbinger of the larger mega trend which we will see soon in 🇺🇸, 🇪🇺 & beyond! 😊
As a Brazilian that lives in Europe and read a lot about the US, I thi k you are right. Indeed, all the noise made by anti-establishment parties or politicians seems to sink nowadays. There are many reasons (incompetence, lack of strategy), but the major one is that the state is so powerful that you can't t really change its structure radically.
Correct, but I don't even go that far-
It's no longer about 'State Power’ it's about 'Peoples' weakness' & the fact that most people prefer boredom, apathy & exhaustion as opposed to constantly being angry, incensed & whatnot regarding their societies.
The reason I expect Populism to gradually fade away in the coming years & decades has less to do with 'How powerful governments are' (this is actually not entirely true) & has more to do with the composition of the Masses of Peoples 'at the bottom.'
II was writing this commentary in a bus and I think I wasn't quite clear about what I mean by "state power". The thing that really amazes me about the contemporary state is not its power (let's say, putting people in jail, protecting borders), but it's size and how a large group of society is totally dependent upon the state. I would say that at least 60% of the "educated class" lives from the state nowadays (bureaucrats and indirect bureaucrats, lawyers for ex.). Then, all the people that receive resources from the state (the poor, the old, the lazy etc.). And then, of course, the very rich and powerful are totally connected to the system.
So, in my view, even if a radical upheaval of the state structure could, in the long run, be positive (which is something uncertain), there are so many stakeholders, from so many different social and economic status, that the costs are too high. The structure is bloated but almost everyone is sucking from it, so the price to pay is indeed very high. I see this in Argentina, f. ex. There, the government tries to tackle ancient distortions caused by public policies that are quite harmful, but the immediate price to pay is so high that all the energy and political will fades quite quickly.
I respect Quais a lot as an intelligent observer of the political scene, but he is mistaken. Canada is a special case. Apart from one Quebec-based populist party that gets good numbers. Canada never had either a right-wing faction in the Conservative Party or even a mild populist-nationalist english-speaking party. Carney's opponent Pollieve, while a little edgy, is certainly not either a nationalist or populist Nationalist. Canada's self-image and identity is entirely establishment Leftist. The last right-winger in major office was Duplesse, the Quebec Premier who left office in 1959. Countries like the US,UK France and Britian always have had dissenting political groups, even if they were unsuccessful and incompetent. Except for "two men and a dog" operations like that of Paul Fromm (a very nice man BTW) there have been no general right-wing movements in Canada post-1959.
Check Maxine Bernier’s people’s party, which is self described as “populist.”
They are basically irrelevant today.
🇨🇦 shows the future.
Populism will die via exhaustion, boredom & inability to govern. 😉
Agreed very special case. It’s never a good idea to predict a trend from a single data point, but in this case the single data point is barely on the graph.
It’s definitely on the graph. 😉
European populist parties (for instance) haven’t deported “tens of millions of invaders” in the past decade.
Let’s just say… I’m very confident that carney’s triumph in 🇨🇦 will be repeated for technocrats elsewhere across the west. 😊
Canada is always about a decade or so behind the US. There might be hope yet. Or Alberta will leave Canada and join US and then maybe other western provinces. Then just Eastern Canada will be cooked
Tales of the “North American union” I find very tiresome & too fantastical.
It’s a nice idea, but completely impractical given 🇺🇸’s looming debt default & sovereign debt crisis.
More likely scenario? Everyone fractures into smaller entities… all ruled by oligarchs & technocrats who claim said fiefdoms 😉
Conclusion seems a little premature. Canadian populism was only thwarted by Trump's crude style. People voted for liberals in protest, but the Canadian results aren't particularly important. Let's see how things develop in Europe. It seems the globalist elites are resorting to strong measures to stay in power.
Well, we have 10 years of data to draw from, so I don’t think it’s premature for me to say that boredom, apathy & indifference are winning over 😡, zeal & whatnot 😉
I disagree that the 🇨🇦 results aren’t important… 🇨🇦 is a key energy & minerals player in the global market so them going to the globalists is a key development, regardless of what people say otherwise 😊
Agreed with you that 🇪🇺 is still “up in the air” for a lot of these guys… but the trends indicate to me at least that the era of “populist rebellion” is over & in its place we will see capitulation to the technocrats, oligarchs & managerial elite 😉
Also I’d like to comment on the Canadian issue. The “Conservatives” in Canada lost because of how watered down they were. “Axe the tax” doesnt win anymore. Pierre Poilievre is to left of Mitt Romney to put it into perspective.
“Axe the Tax” is the consensus post-WW2 of ‘what the right-wing should be’. The Right consistently tried to distance itself from nationalism and populism after WW2 by shifting its focus towards economics (free market, trickle down economics, etc).
When there was no opposition to cultural issues, the Left kept winning the culture war. It is why you have boomers who will rather have their kids mutilated before being called racist (they still have gotten both despite their appeasement).
Poilievre, who talks and acts like a snake oil salesman, was regurgitating post-WW2 ideological rhetoric, cringely parading in a Sikh turban, and barely focusing on the fact that the country is getting flooded with third worlders and everything is unaffordable because of them.
Result? He lost the elections, and he also lost his OWN seat in the parliament. It’s funny and super deserved.
I’ll restate this from another comment because it is relevant to what has been mentioned 😉:
>> Carney won because his platform was boring, stable & predictable.
Even if Pierre had campaigned on “mass deportations”… which is the PPC platform btw (check out how well they did in this election cycle!😆)… he would have been soundly defeated 😊
That’s the thing you don’t get: the “repel the invaders! 😡 “ sales pitch doesn’t actually jive with most westerners. Yes, people want stronger border controls, but they don’t want weird ethnic cleansing-lite in lieu of today’s weird open borders policies 😊 <<
Every top 3 party in nearly every country in Europe is a populist party.
You know what keeps them alive?
The fact that the left and the liberals have gone so deep in their ‘gay race communism’ that they can’t walk back without losing major support of the leftist hive-mind voter base. Democrats in the US still want to transition kids, without understanding that thats a big portion of what got them to lose in November.
The more everyone from far left to center-right keeps insisting on importing millions of third-worlders, and the more the center-right parties lie (such as CDU in Germany), the more the parties of the hard right and far right will rise. A decline will happen even to Reform UK if they keep bending. The people crave a non-apologetic, populist party.
Trump went from saying only legal immigration, to wanting to curb that too. And the majority Republicans are perfectly fine with it. Now imagine in Europe.
Meanwhile, every right-leaning party that isn’t populistic, nationalistic is losing voters and is carried by boomers.
I never comment on here, but I read a lot of blogs. This is by far the most retarded thing I’ve read. Judging by your name, nobody should take your takes on the Western Right too seriously. You seem to be seething and angry of the fact that Europe refuses to turn into a sharia law infested hellhole.
You’re correct about the fact that “the letter people” keep populism alive.
What you’re wrong about is the implication behind that, given the historical record on what happens to the “revolution” even when their foes are weak:
You think that because the opponent is naive and irrelevant that the revolutionary army will win.
(Narrator’s voice: Nope! 😊🤭)
What I am saying in this piece is that the “gay race communists” don’t HAVE TO win… they simply need to ignore, trundle along & sedate people per usual with their drivel.
After all, why break something that already works? 😉 😘
Apathy, indifference & boredom Win the day… not zeal, passion & 😡… 😂
Well, then it’s a matter of the fact that the derailment of Europe boils down to the French Revolution. If liberalism is put to stop, it has to be a huge change in reality itself. Our concepts of everything are those of liberal democracy and classical liberalism. It was the consensus after the French Revolution, and brutally enforced after WW2.
The place that adopted liberalism the first (even before the French) was the US, and it will also be the place to first get rid of it.
“Liberalism being put to a stop” doesn’t mean by default that populism wins.
The point of this piece is to highlight that Carney won precisely because there is no positive alternative vision that populists provide to liberalism that is (1) capable of mass governance, (2) something the lions share of people in these western societies want & (3) is something that is biophysically possible to implement in a realistic fashion.
If you don’t have ALL of (1) through (3)… sorry, but it doesn’t matter if liberalism is “fake & ghey” ( I agree with this btw 😉) … apathy, boredom & drift will then win 😊
I wrote in a separate comment why Carney won. It’s got nothing to do with any of this that you mentioned. It’s pretty simple actually.
If Pierre campaigned on mass deportations early on, just as Trump did, it would end differently. That would happen only if Pierre wasnt Pierre, who is untrustable and gives off a meek energy.
That’s where you are wrong 😉
Carney won because his platform was boring, stable & predictable.
Even if Pierre had campaigned on “mass deportations”… which is the PPC platform btw (check out how well they did in this election cycle!😆)… he would have been soundly defeated 😊
That’s the thing you don’t get: the “repel the invaders! 😡 “ sales pitch doesn’t actually jive with most westerners. Yes, people want stronger border controls, but they don’t want weird ethnic cleansing-lite in lieu of today’s weird open borders policies 😊
To mention Boris J. as one of the main leaders of the pure populist right (right next to Bolsonaro!) is absurd. Also, while I agree that the movement has lost a lot of steam in some nations, it has certainly (thankfully) gained in others. The vanguard needs to give the movement a new shot of adrenaline.
He was critical for Brexit (alongside Farage) seeing 'the Light of Day,' so it's not a mistake to say that he is a key Populist figure, even if some think he isn't 'pure enough.'
It's not just 'some nations,' most variations of Populism are on the way out across the West. They may get one final Dead Cat Bounce (thereby actually winning a few more elections here & there), but the general tendency is the same everywhere:
Once they get access to Genuine Power & Influence, they are incapable of Statecraft & Governance, given the nature of the Lofty promises they make & how chaotic, nonsensical & unrealistic they are to not just implement but to simply pursue.
Case in point, Le Don's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs:
He is simultaneously nuking Supply Chains, The Bond Markets & American Manufacturing. By the Decade's end to the early 2030s, this will mean permanent, longstanding damage done to America's productive sector.
This is not a man who (let's be real here) will become 'dynastic.'
More likely scenario? He suffers a fate similar to Nixon & has to resign OR he is ousted, given the way in which he is imploding & destroying his own society.
That's the thing with Populism... it cannot govern. & the libtards (for all their Letter people ideology & other nonsense) are certainly incompetent & sleazy... but they CAN govern, albeit it's a very dull, broken & dissatisfactory leadership.
The first signs of populism you note were when they thought voting could win. Now (hopefully) they know better, and are moving on to what comes after populism isn't allowed to win at the ballot box.
Read sir Blue Vir’s essay.
The thing “that is supposed to come after” won’t be coming for most people.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bluevir/p/there-will-be-no-revolution-only?r=5jj6h&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
“There will be No Revolution, Only Breakdown.”
I am a first time reader and I find your post to be very thought provoking as well as disturbing. There's a definite ring of truth in most of what you say and although I hate to resort to jingoism Canadians and Brits are hardly the same as Americans. We have a tendency to hold, hold then explode as evidenced by "when a long train of abuses and
usurpations.." Don't count us out just yet. We will not go quietly.
This comment appears to be a repetition, so please refer to the other one where I responded to it! 😉
You are confusing Trump 2.0 for Trump 1.0
The former is more unhinged than the latter, given the fact that during the trade war 1.0 circa 2018… there was still an understanding that too much nonsense would impact alliance structures, supply chains & bond markets.
This time around? 🔥 it all to the ground, Xhosa cattle killing style 😂