Here’s an article almost certain to annoy you.
The convoy has moved on. The challenge of extreme populism remains.
We are two sentences in an I already would like to commit an act of extreme populism on the CBC headquarters. Okay, first of all, populism is just another word for “democracy.” And I mean actual democracy there, not some tightly controlled elections. This is considered a “challenge,” to our Democracy Class.
It’s a long-term challenge both for Canada’s democracy and its political leadership — one that was apparent long before the trucks laid siege to the streets of downtown Ottawa.
No, the truckers did not “lay siege,” to the nations capitol. They were all unarmed, and they showed up in Ottawa. Once again, I remind you of CHAZ, and the BLM riots.
On February 17, 2017 — five years to the day before he stood in the House of Commons and opened debate on his government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau addressed the St. Matthew’s Day Banquet, an elegant, centuries-old event held annually in Hamburg, Germany.
Weeks earlier, Donald Trump had become president of the United States. Shortly before that, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Trudeau suddenly found himself portrayed as a torch-bearer for liberal democracy and progressive government. Five months after his speech in Hamburg, he appeared on a Rolling Stone cover which asked whether he was “the free world’s best hope.”
I really don’t think there’s too much more of this that I can handle. Imagining Justin Trudeau as anything other than the torch bearer for our utterly loathed, and utterly anti-democratic Privileged Class is too far of a stretch for me. I can’t even entertain the idea.
Five years later, the initial focus on economic “anxiety” and inequality has given way to a broader discussion about the other things that might be feeding the disenchantment upon which populism feeds. “Status risk” and tribalism. A diminished sense of economic fairness. Political polarization, social media and “misinformation.” The convoy has now demonstrated both the potential impact of the pandemic and the power and reach of American media’s perpetual anger machine.
Before I click on that link to find out what “status risk,” is, I’m going to push in all my chips at the clout casino that it’ll be something anti-White.
The first element at play is the perceived loss of status among members of a dominant societal group, namely working-class white men.
That was easy. If you’re wondering what the rest of that article is, it basically goes on about how you’re just a fragile little White Goy who can’t accept a browning of your country. Oh but also support jew nationalism please goyim. Actually I’ll quote one more small part.
In all of these cases, right-wing leaders used rhetoric to stoke fears among predominantly (but not exclusively) white, blue-collar men that they had become Strangers in their Own Land, that their governments were leaving them behind, and it was time to make their countries “great again.” This language encourages a sense of nostalgia for an idealized version of the past that is significantly less inclusive than today in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity.
“Inclusive,” means racial discrimination against White People, when these people use the term. And LOL at “Working Class White Men,” being the “dominant social group.” I would have guessed jew billionaires, but that’s just me.
But also, when they want to trivialize anti-White policy, such as the CBC’s refusal to capitalize the W in White People, or massive non-White immigration, or anti-White hate propaganda in academia or corporations, they start talking about our feelings. Which is not really the point, and besides that, when they want to pretend that Black People, or Aboriginals are discriminated against, what they do is they make them fill out forms asking if they feel discriminated against. When a certain percentage of them say that they do, they then proclaim that x% of groupHere was racially discriminated against. QED.
Progressives and moderates are still grappling with the question of what to do about all that. But Trudeau’s prescription remains relevant.
Trudeau told the business and political figures in his audience that he wanted to “challenge” them, “to highlight that the challenges we’re facing require real action and real leadership.”
Trudeau cited the actions of his own government. In its first 16 months, Trudeau said, the Liberal government had increased support to families through the Canada Child Benefit, boosted assistance for post-secondary students and made new investments in training and employment programs.
And we are currently undergoing a massive increase in wealth disparity between billionaires and everyone else, in large part due to his capricious handling of Covid-19. Well that and everything else.
Like most of Trudeau’s platitudes, it’s a lot of hot air. Nobody gives less of a fuck about average everyday people than Joffrey Trudeau.
In the face of political alienation and anti-democratic anger, such proposals can seem quaint.
Yes, the little people are upset that they aren’t getting the policies that they want. Them getting the policies that they want would be a threat to our democracy. We can’t have the government reflecting the will of the people now can we.
It’s probably too much to imagine that new or reformed government programs could completely extinguish the flames of radical populism. Trudeau’s agenda apparently failed to cool those embers.
The people demanding that they get the policy they want is something that needs to be “extinguished.” Instead the little peasants should just shut up and go away. This little weasel has some ideas that he thinks could help.
But it also stands to reason that smart and effective policy that provides meaningful support to citizens might at least shrink the pool of voters who might be drawn to extreme populism. If governments and legislatures show they can deliver solutions and relief, they might maintain faith in the democratic institutions that populists attack.
Imagine having to write this sentence, and still pretending that we live in an actual Democracy? Apparently the solution to make people stop wanting a radical alternative is to start a political party that… maybe actually does what the people want every now and then. This is currently not happening. In a Freedom Democracy.
After two traumatic and frustrating years of the pandemic, the need to reinforce institutional trust might be even greater.
I’ll say. After two years of arbitrary Covid-19 lockdown bullshit, where these propagandists also promoted BLM riots, and called them peaceful protests. And then claimed that the actually peaceful protest on January 6th, where unarmed Americans went to the nations capitol and walked around before four of them were murdered in cold blood by the police, was a “violent insurrection.” All while supporting the actual violent insurrection, however LARPy and pathetic, that was CHAZ.
And I don’t think that I need to remind you that the very same people who lied us into Iraq are also the biggest advocates for you and I to be censored. And no, they have not faced punishment for this in any way, but if you fact-check some CIA/Mossad propaganda, you can enjoy some censorship courtesy of trillion dollar multinationals.
Trudeau’s second suggestion was simpler in theory but maybe harder to follow in practice. Political leaders, he said, need to listen.
Believe it or not, comments are actually open on this CBC article. That’s not always or even usually the case, but I guess the irony was too much for them. Then again, they’re also pretending that Trudeau is a big listener to the people, which is a bit too absurd to even respond to.
As Trudeau told his audience in Hamburg, he had just completed a national tour of town hall forums, taking questions from anyone who happened to show up. This was not without political risk, he said, and it could be unpredictable and sometimes intense, “but it’s only in having those tough conversations that we can get at the heart of what matters.”
We’re gonna need more cat pics for this Privilege Class Bloviation. Trudeau’s cross country rampage tour predates this website by many years, but I distinctly remember it being a retarded clusterfuck. And I also remember him refusing to answer at least one question by saying “that’s an alt-right talking point.” Unfortunately I can’t find it now, but the point is that this whiny dipshit has never been open to actually answering questions that he doesn’t feel like answering.
There was a hint of Trudeau the listener when anti-vaccine mandate protesters forced his campaign to cancel an event last August. The prime minister said then that “anger” should be met with “compassion.” But Trudeau eventually took a much harder line with the angry crowds that followed him. He was similarly dismissive of the convoy, calling it a “small fringe minority of people” who have “unacceptable views.”
I hope you don’t mind me reminding you that Trudeau supported the actually violent “pipeline protests,” from 2020. And on February 18th, one of them attacked security guards and a camp with axes, injuring at least one. What did Trudeau say in response? Absolutely nothing, because he supports violent riots by people he and his handlers politically agree with, but not peaceful protests that they do not agree with.
There were elements in both protests that were worth condemning: the election campaign protesters who threw stones at the prime minister, insulted his wife and shouted offensive comments, the racist and extremist views expressed by some of the convoy organizers, the convoy’s stated mission of overthrowing Canadian democracy, the harassment of citizens in Ottawa.
Those who called on the prime minister to meet or negotiate with the occupiers in Ottawa — including prominent federal Conservatives — seemed bent on ignoring such facts.
And yet BLM Toronto founder, Yusra K. Ali, said “Whiteness is not humxness, in fact white skin is sub humxn.” And yet Trudeau still went to a BLM struggle session himself. And like I wrote earlier, he met with the anti-pipeline “protests,” or sent his cabinet members to in his stead. So the idea that there are some meanies or whatever and so Justin doesn’t have to meet with them is contradictory to his previous actions.
Trudeau could argue that some of his comments have been made to seem worse than they were. His suggestion to one interviewer that some of those who oppose COVID-19 vaccination were “misogynistic and racist” has since been framed as an attack on all the unvaccinated.
No it’s just a flat out retarded thing to say. It was seen correctly as Trudeau trying to weasel his way out of meeting with the protesters by calling them meanies.
But the lesson of Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” moment in 2016 is that leaders (particularly progressive ones) have to choose their words carefully to avoid creating a rallying cry for opportunistic populists.
But why would “progressive,” leaders have to pick their words more carefully? Is it that “progressivism,” could more accurately be called “privilegism,” which is to say it is a luxury belief set that intentionally offers nothing to the people, precisely because that is the point. Never forget that the people who are flooding your country with Third Worlders, are jew nationalist Israel supporters who live in gated communities.
In Trudeau’s case — however much he might have wanted to “listen” — he ended up standing in opposition to some of his fellow citizens.
Oh no I’m sure it was eating him up inside not listening to those Uppity Peasants.
That’s harder than standing up to Donald Trump or the illiberal ideas that leaders like Trump promote.
Remember goyim, mass murder of foreigners in wars these people lie us into isn’t “illiberalism.” Mass censorship lead by the (((ADL))) isn’t illiberalism. Making it illegal to fact-check the lampshadocaust isn’t illiberalism. Illiberalism is you peasants getting what you want, whether it is or is not government related.
It does not follow that Trudeau is to blame for the protests. But the convoy demonstrated the need for people in public life to find the line between compassion and capitulation — to acknowledge the concerns of angry, uneasy voters while still rejecting the influencers and ideas that cannot in good conscience be humoured.
Apparently the line between compassion and capitulation is you declare yourself dictator and freeze the peaceful protesters bank accounts while vowing to hunt them down and charge them with bullshit crimes after the police abuse them. To do any less would be way too much compassion, or something.
The convoy has brought back to the foreground the central challenge of Trudeau’s first four years as prime minister — to defend liberal democracy and establish a model of progressive government that can stand up to the forces of populism and the anti-democratic and illiberal energy that often comes with it.
Let’s all hope and pray that Daddy was PM can successfully stand up to the forces of the peasants getting the actual policies that they want. Everybody pray for Justin.
Man, that was my longest article I’ve written in a very long time. But sometimes you just have to get this stuff off your chest.