Saturday, January 24, 2026

jokes aside.

the idea that canada can just build a protective igloo across the border and go it alone isn't some kind of noble defiance. canada is not some righteous path in a sea of corruption. canada's as bad as any other capitalist actor, and in many ways we are worse. we will not survive. 

churchill had his ass handed to him and needed help not just from the americans but from the soviets. his speeches of defiance were delusional hogwash. britain was on the brink. and he was a piece of shit, anyways.

if you want a history lesson, you might study the punic wars, or the trojan wars (as they've come down to us) or, yes, the peloponnesian war, too. you might look at the mongolian conquest of china, or of the collapse of the roman empire. there are tactics to use to get inside the larger, more powerful actor and eat away at it from the inside. the chinese infested the mongolian horde and came out in control of it. roman culture emerged in tact after the german invasions.

if canada wants to seriously survive, rather than carry out a performative form of "survival", it needs to leverage the allies it has in the united states, and it has a lot of them, and it has a lot of leverage.

i think any smart person will concede that merger is inevitable, as a merger of the north and south of china was, or a merger of italy and germany was, or a merger of scotland and england was. if we want our culture to survive and prosper in lieu of theirs, we need to approach the merger with an upper hand, and not run from it, or try to avoid it. if we do that, we will just be wiped out.
also, i can't help but post this right now.



this is the right way to do this.

canadian sovereignty is stupid. trump's a dipshit, but this is inevitable, and he's catalyzing an eventuality. the question is whether we're going to merge in a way in which we have the upper hand and make america more canadian, or the other way around, and i vote for canadianizing america. so, if trump is going to insist on being an assface, let's get this started.

as chicago will be a part of the new united states of canada, let's quote al to start.

no, not that al from chicago.

the other one.

northern states that vote to become a part of the united states of canada will be exempt from the export taxes.
if trump wants to place a 100% tax on 15% of american goods, many of which are completely inelastic or at least have low elasticity, because there are no comparable substitutes and perpetual demand, he should go for it. let's see how that works out for him.

it makes no sense whatsoever to retaliate, except via the export taxes i've been pointing to since this started.

canada should place an export tax of 100% on all items that trump tariffs.

future residents of the united states of canada should take note of that as a benefit and as a feature of the new society. in the united states of canada, there will be no right to open carry. canadians think that's retarded.
well.

if the argument is that he was simply defending his right to walk around with a gun, i wouldn't accept that. i would support the police shooting people walking around with weapons in public and would not support the idea that that's some kind of right. that's utterly retarded.

they might have perhaps shot him in the leg, instead. it seems like this was probably overkill, and the last several years of events in minnesota suggest there's a systemic problem in the police force in minnesota.

but i would, in principle, support shooting at people at protests with guns, and i would support that as a protester. it's not something that's ever come up here, but if i showed up to a protest group and there was a guy with a gun, i'd be on the other side of the square. i wouldn't go anywhere near him, wouldn't talk to him and would want him to go away. this guy showed up to a rally prepared for a war. that's not to say that the united states won't get to civil war in time, but it's not there, and i'm certainly not in support of people trying to get there.

the difference between the united states and iran is pretty overwhelmingly clear. in a democratic society, all civil disobedience should be non-violent. americans don't need to use violence to tear down a dictatorship and create a democracy, they have a system to work in. it's hard, but americans have what the rest of the world is fighting for, and there's no justification to use force when you lose an election and don't get what you want.

the americans are only protecting your gold, germany.

very few of the dictatorships in the middle east will survive an american withdrawal.

with american withdrawal, the long necessary arab enlightenment period may finally be in view on the horizon.
when donald trump goes to europe, he sees plain and modest buildings built for utility, while wealth is distributed more fairly to people. when donald trump goes to the middle east, he sees immense disparities in wealth, and ostentatious towers built of gold. therefore, the middle east is a rising society because it builds towers of gold on the backs of it's people, and europe is on the brink of collapse because it does not have these displays of wealth, and instead has better wealth redistribution.

the role that the united states has played in building and maintaining this order appears to be lost on him, as are the lessons of the revolutions of the past. more gold towers equals more success, and a higher likelihood of success in the future.

as a leftist, i'll happily take the mistake and call on the forces of democracy and liberation to take advantage of it.
there was a time after world war two when the united states understood that it had to occupy germany and japan, and then korea, and then poland, not in order to "protect them", but in order to subjugate them and force them to submit to american hegemony, because allowing them to rebuild and remilitarize posed not just a substantive threat to american security but the greatest threat to it. it was also calculated that forward positions in europe and asia would help contain eurasian powers, but this was secondary to the need to occupy and control america's enemies, which were germany and japan. the united states was aligned with both russia and china in world war two. 

that correct thought process is no longer being considered by the pentagon, which is now concerning itself with resource extraction in the western hemisphere, in an attempted return to the distant past, which will fail on it's own accord. it is instead encouraging it's enemies to arm themselves so america doesn't need to "protect" them, as though they were there out of the goodness of their hearts, and not as occupying and pacifying forces, with the purpose of subjugating them.

instead, america seeks to align itself with the "rising powers" in the middle east, which are, in truth, the society that is on the brink of actual civilizational collapse. they are not following russian propaganda, they're being led by the arab lobby and easily distracted by the display of gold and outward wealth. but this distribution of wealth is false, as it reflects decisions in washington to buy oil from the middle east and increase european reliance on american defence systems. the europeans can defend themselves, but the muslims cannot.

what america is going to learn very quickly is that if it allows europe to "defend itself", it will immediately reassert itself as a threat to us interests and that if it gets out of the way in the middle east, the society will almost instantly collapse. the united states is not holding europe together, but it is propping up dictatorships in the middle east. this is the opposite of their calculations. germany does not need the united states to protect itself from russia, but saudi arabia does need the united states to protect itself from it's own people.

as a secular leftist, i'm interested in this outcome. the world will be better off with a stronger europe and a weaker middle east. the mistake of america's stupid right will be of the benefit of the global left.

as for the pacific, i don't imagine the united states is going to actually withdraw from japan and, so long as it remains in japan, it will retain a deterrent.

i don't want to defend the arctic.

not one canadian should die defending a pile of rocks for a multinational corporation.

why don't we sell it back to england?