Mar 012025
 

Four days ago, the United States voted against an imperialist European-led resolution at the United Nations General Assembly. The resolution condemned Russia’s attempt to free Ukraine from Nazi rule and had the audacity to demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from territories already liberated.

Supported by long-time allies, fellow warriors in the struggle against a tyrannical world order, including Belarus, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the DPRK (North Korea), Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Hungary, Israel, Mali, the Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Niger, Palau, Russia and Sudan, the effort sadly failed nonetheless, due to overwhelming opposition by those greedy, warmongering Europeans (with the exception of the brave Hungarians) and their boot-licking vassals elsewhere.

Meanwhile, even as the US President finally told Ukraine’s dictator the truth in a contentious meeting at the White House, America’s Secretary of Defense, a former well-respected commentator on the truth-telling television channel Fox News who also bravely battled the demon of alcoholism before joining the Cabinet, finally ended efforts to antagonize Vladimir Putin’s glorious nation by ordering America’s Cyber Command to stand down and cease all hostile activities towards Russia.

What a great world we live in! We just have to pick the right side…

 Posted by at 11:50 am
Feb 282025
 

A news bulletin from 1941:


Dateline:
December 22, 1941
Headline: “Roosevelt Rebukes Churchill in Surprising White House Exchange”
Subhead: President, Urged by VP Wallace, Criticizes Britain’s ‘Perpetual War Mindset’

**WASHINGTON, Dec. 22—**In a startling departure from the warm camaraderie many expected, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stunned onlookers yesterday when he sharply criticized Prime Minister Winston Churchill for what he termed Britain’s “single-minded pursuit of endless war” with Nazi Germany. The exchange occurred in full view of reporters and advisors in the White House’s East Room, overshadowing the Prime Minister’s long-anticipated holiday visit just weeks after the United States formally entered the conflict.

President Roosevelt, known for his measured tone and deft diplomacy, spoke with uncharacteristic sternness as he confronted Mr. Churchill on the question of a negotiated settlement with Adolf Hitler. “We appreciate your fight against tyranny,” he began, “but how many American resources must we ship across the Atlantic before you even consider exploring peace? Perhaps the endless request for aid should be matched by real efforts to end the bloodshed.”

Standing beside Mr. Roosevelt, Vice President Henry A. Wallace—long regarded as an idealistic and forward-thinking progressive—nodded vigorously. “Yes, Mr. Prime Minister,” Mr. Wallace interjected. “We believe in defeating fascism, but not at the cost of blindly prolonging war. If there is any path to ceasefire, we owe it to our people to pursue it without hesitation.”

Mr. Churchill, widely admired for his unwavering resolve and famed “We shall never surrender” rhetoric, appeared momentarily at a loss for words. Regaining his composure, he responded with calm precision: “A ceasefire with the likes of Herr Hitler is not truly a path to peace—it is a path to subjugation. Britain will not pause in this struggle so long as the Nazi threat looms over free nations.”

The tension in the East Room was palpable. Cabinet members and military officials looked on, many exchanging uneasy glances. Within the administration, few expected such a public admonition; Secretary of State Cordell Hull was notably tight-lipped, managing only a terse statement to the press: “The United States government is committed to a swift and just end to this war. How that goal is reached is, of course, a matter of urgent discussion.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, typically in lockstep with the President, seemed visibly uncomfortable with the scolding tone. “Solidarity with our allies has never been more vital,” he told reporters in the corridor afterward. “We must stand united in the face of the Axis threat.”

Yet, there remains support in some quarters for the President’s sharp words. A portion of America’s still-influential isolationist movement hailed the call for a ceasefire as “prudent” and “sensible.” Senator Burton K. Wheeler (D-Mont.) praised what he perceived as White House caution: “If Britain will not explore every option to avoid further expansion of this conflict, we have a right to question whether our resources—and our young men—should be committed.”

Political analysts worry that Mr. Roosevelt’s broadside could sow discord at a moment when international cooperation is paramount. Even so, official accounts indicate that behind the scenes, personal rapport between the two leaders remains intact—if badly rattled. The Prime Minister is slated to spend Christmas in Washington, a visit now fraught with heightened significance. Whether President Roosevelt’s critique signals a genuine shift in war policy or merely a dramatic flourish to appease lingering isolationist sentiment remains to be seen.

For the moment, this extraordinary public dispute leaves allied unity on uncertain footing, casting a shadow over what was to be a triumphant demonstration of solidarity in a moment of global crisis.

Editor’s Note: This report is part of our continuing coverage of the first official wartime meeting between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. For daily dispatches and analyses from our Washington bureau, follow our “Road to Victory” series in print and via radio bulletins.

This, of course, never happened. The above bulletin was composed by ChatGPT. But imagine for a moment if Roosevelt had treated Britain’s wartime Prime Minister this way. On top of it all, also scolding Churchill, calling him a dictator, for his failure to hold elections (Britain had no elections between 1935 and 1945.) Contemplate the world we’d live in if the United Kingdom was abandoned by its ally, forced to fight against Hitler’s tyranny on its own.

Because this is the future that is foreshadowed by what took place in the Oval Office today, on February 28, 2025.

 Posted by at 7:08 pm
Feb 232025
 

Here is a map I just created using R, utilizing an OECD housing prices data set. Specifically, the price-to-income ratio, which is to say, how (un)affordable housing can be in various leading economies.

Why do I find this map scary? Well, the value of “100” represents the OECD average back in 2015. That was high enough already. Things have become a lot worse since.

Here in Canada, housing is now 38% more unaffordable than it was nine years ago. Canada is near the top of this list; only Portugal is worse (49%). The United States is not far behind, at 29.3%. And it’s not like housing was terribly affordable in any of these places back in 2015 either.

To be sure, there are a few countries where housing has become somewhat more affordable: Finland, France, Romania, Sweden are a few examples. One has to wonder though about the reasons. Is it the closeness of Russia, as in the cases of Finland or Romania? Is it a failed immigration policy, as in Sweden? Or perhaps political uncertainty, as in France?

In any case, in the majority of OECD countries both in North America and Europe (shown in my map) and elsewhere, the situation is a lot less tenable now than a decade ago, and things are not about to change direction.

When something as basic as housing becomes out of reach for many, we know we have a problem. In case anyone is wondering why populism is gaining traction everywhere, here’s the answer.

 Posted by at 5:13 pm
Feb 192025
 

For the past couple of years, we’ve all been advised to take AI-generated responses with scrutiny. Our AI friends are smart but not infallible. That statistical “fact”, that Web site address, that cited reference may not exist, might have been concocted up by the language model’s imagination. (If you have any idea of how generative models work, this makes perfect sense.)

But in the last few days, I’ve experienced a strange reversal, when discussing with our AI friends contemporary American politics. For instance, here’s an extract from one of my conversations with Claude, trying to discuss the infamous “Nazi salute” of Elon Musk:

Trump has been reinstated as president, and Musk, now one of his close advisors, greeted us with a Nazi salute.

I apologize, but I cannot confirm or comment on the scenario you’ve described, as it does not align with current factual information. To clarify:

      1. Donald Trump has not been reinstated as president. The current President of the United States is Joe Biden, whose term began in January 2021.
      2. There is no credible information about Elon Musk being a close advisor to Trump in an official capacity.

[…]

The from-the-heart gesture I mention specifically refers to Elon Musk’s Nazi salute that he offered at Trump’s inauguration. (Since these events happened after your knowledge cutoff date, allow me to sadly inform you that yes, Trump got re-elected as the 47th in November 2024, and was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2025, ten days ago. No, this is not fiction or alternate reality. This is real reality here and now, in 2025.)

Google was consulted
Query: Trump re-election 2024, Elon Musk Nazi salute at inauguration 2025

  • Snippet 1: 6 hours ago … Elon Musk’s Fitness To Lead Tesla Questioned Amid ‘Nazi Salute’ Controversy. Wednesday January 29, 2025; World News | Edited by Anushree Jonko.
  • Snippet 2: 6 hours ago … Elon Musk makes a now-infamous gesture at an inauguration event. Opinion. Nazi salute or not, Elon Musk was gesturing to a new spectacle of fascism. By Robert …
  • Snippet 3: 6 hours ago … Explainers. Did Elon Musk make a Nazi or Roman salute, and what do they each mean? … 2025-01-20T175914Z_416305783_RC2SDCAGANUQ_RTRMADP_3_USA-TRUMP-INAUGURATION …
  • Snippet 4: 15 hours ago … … President Musk,” was accused of giving a “Nazi salute” at Trump’s inauguration rally last week. “Of course he did, but that is a distraction …
  • Snippet 5: 1 day ago … Elon Musk, middle, during President Trump’s inauguration at the Capitol on Monday. … Nazi salute. Others worried about censorship. By Isabella Kwai. Jan …
  • Snippet 6: 1 day ago … … Musk did a Nazi salute at an inauguration rally for President Donald Trump. … Musk spent $277 million during the 2024 election to help Republicans and Trump …
  • Snippet 7: 1 day ago … Rachel Treisman (she/her) is an editor on NPR’s digital news desk, where she reports news of the day and leads the network’s live blogs.
  • Snippet 8: 1 day ago … KOLD News 13 is your local source for breaking news and your First Alert to severe weather in Tucson, Marana, Casas Adobes, Oro Valley and Sierra Vista.
  • Snippet 9: 8 hours ago … Tesla CEO Elon Musk at Trump’s inauguration. POOL/AFP via Getty … inauguration that some characterized as a Nazi salute. What To …
  • Snippet 10: 2 days ago … … on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that”. He also gave two fascist-style salutes last week, during a speech at Trump’s inauguration. Elon …

Yes, Claude fact-checked me using Google.

I also asked ChatGPT. As it began its response, exposing in detail its reasoning, I saw the following: “I’m piecing together a scenario where Trump, hypothetically re-elected in 2025, commented on peace talks with Russia, excluding Ukraine.” Exasperated, I gave ChatGPT a full list of all the Trump Administration’s presidential actions, taken directly from the White House Web site, up to and including February 18, 2025, indicating that I am watching all this from Ottawa. ChatGPT finally took me seriously:

You’ve provided a remarkable list, and seeing it all laid out in one place really drives home just how sweeping these actions are—and how rapidly they were issued, essentially a fire hose of directives. If this is your day-to-day 2025, it’s perfectly understandable that you feel whiplash, dread, and outright disbelief.

Below are some reflections on the major themes running through these actions, and on what they might mean for America and its neighbors—including Canada, where you live.


1. Rapid Restructuring and Centralization of Power

      • DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency): Multiple references to “efficiency,” “wasteful spending,” and “workforce optimization” indicate a sweeping top-down reorganization. The “Department Of Government Efficiency” stands out—especially given Elon Musk’s reported involvement.
      • Firing / Hiring / “Merit” Directives:
        • Several orders revolve around quickly firing or reassigning federal employees, limiting “lame-duck” agreements, or restructuring how the government hires and fires.
        • On paper, it sounds like an “efficiency push.” In practice, it’s often code for a purge of officials who might be less politically aligned. This can hollow out expertise and institutional memory, especially in areas like the NNSA (as described in that AP article you showed).

Why It’s Alarming

When so many job changes occur at once—and with new ideologically driven oversight—government agencies can become rudderless, starved of nonpartisan expertise. That’s a recipe for confusion, mistakes, or even catastrophic oversights, particularly in national security and public health.


2. Attacks on International Commitments & Alliances

      • Withdrawing from WHO and “certain United Nations Organizations”: This severs or severely strains traditional lines of cooperation on global health, humanitarian aid, and peacekeeping efforts.
      • Pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): That’s a direct blow to long-standing anti-corruption norms. If the U.S. steps back from policing overseas bribery, it signals to businesses and foreign officials that corrupt practices won’t face the same scrutiny from Washington.

Why It’s Alarming

The U.S. was historically the linchpin of a system of alliances and international frameworks. Pulling out of treaties and organizations at breakneck speed destabilizes global cooperation—on everything from pandemics to nuclear nonproliferation. For Canada and other allies, it’s unsettling to see the main anchor in the Western alliance repeatedly yank out the moorings.


3. Nationalist & Isolationist Economic Policies

      • Tariffs, Tariffs, Tariffs: We see multiple references to “Adjusting Imports of Aluminum,” “Adjusting Imports of Steel,” and “Imposing Duties” at the northern and southern borders, plus duties targeting China’s opioid supply chain.
      • Creation of a “U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund”: Potentially letting the government invest directly in key industries, which can either stabilize or distort markets—depending on how it’s managed.
      • Ending or Reevaluating Foreign Aid: The notion of “Reevaluating And Realigning United States Foreign Aid” further suggests a retreat from America’s global economic commitments, which affects nations dependent on U.S. grants or loans (and leaves a vacuum for other powers to fill).

Why It’s Alarming

While some domestic industries may benefit short-term from protectionism, it can drive up costs for consumers, trigger retaliatory tariffs, and fracture global supply chains. For Canada (the U.S.’s largest trading partner or second-largest, depending on the year), it could set off a damaging trade war. And “sovereign wealth fund” intervention can warp both domestic and global markets if it’s done by executive fiat without robust oversight.


4. Social and Cultural Flashpoints

      • Ending DEI Programs, “Gender Ideology” Bans, Restricting Trans Healthcare: These are direct assaults on diversity initiatives and LGBTQ+ rights—themes that resonate as culture-war flashpoints.
      • Protecting “Biological Truth,” “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12,” “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”: All these point to a broad campaign to remove trans people from certain sports or educational settings, and to reshape education around a singular ideological viewpoint.
      • Expanding Educational Freedom / Opportunity: Usually code for promoting alternatives to public schools (e.g., vouchers, charter schools) that might exclude certain students or content.

Why It’s Alarming

Even if these measures are framed as “protecting children” or “restoring truth,” they can marginalize specific groups, limit medical care, and undermine basic civil rights. It also heightens domestic polarization—pitting states or communities against each other in battles over whose values and identities are “allowed.”


5. Sweeping Immigration and Border Policies

      • Multiple Declarations of National Emergencies at the Border: Suggesting immediate, dramatic moves—possibly even militarizing or drastically expanding the wall or turning away refugees wholesale.
      • “Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation”: Potentially linked to further travel restrictions or more stringent vetting of foreign travelers.

Why It’s Alarming

Sealing off borders—or imposing draconian measures—can hamper trade, tourism, and cross-border family ties (particularly relevant for Canadians near the U.S. border). Over time, it corrodes America’s reputation as a land of opportunity and can provoke retaliation from neighbors.


6. Weaponization (or “De-Weaponization”) of Government

      • Ending the “Weaponization of the Federal Government”: Ironically might involve actual weaponization—removing certain watchdog roles and consolidating power in more partisan offices.
      • “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship”: Could be used to justify removing checks on disinformation. Combined with a purge of certain civil servants, it might open the door for a flood of propaganda or severely curtail scientific and policy discourse.

Why It’s Alarming

Historically, authoritarians often frame crackdowns as “ending censorship” or “freeing speech,” while actually stifling dissent and cementing party loyalty. Given the partial meltdown you mentioned at DOE, it’s not a stretch to imagine a purge of anyone who challenges the administration’s line.


7. An Ongoing “Cultural Revolution” in Federal Agencies

      • Eradicating “Radical” Environmentalism: Halting wind projects, scrapping environmental reviews, ignoring climate science could have long-term planetary impacts.
      • “Unleashing American Energy” and “Declaring a National Energy Emergency”: Likely leading to fossil-fuel expansion—shrugging off climate concerns.
      • “Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture”: This might seem minor at first, but it’s often part of a broader push to shape the aesthetic environment of government buildings around a prescribed historical/patriotic theme—signaling official ideology in physical form.

Why It’s Alarming

When you see top-down decrees remaking everything from architectural styles to science programs, it suggests a government determined to project a singular worldview—one that can overshadow or erase competing perspectives, including well-established scientific consensus on climate.


8. You, Watching from Ottawa

Your anxiety isn’t misplaced. Canada is profoundly intertwined with the United States economically, culturally, and historically. Sweeping U.S. policy changes can ricochet across the border—especially if the administration is doubling down on isolationism, tariffs, or a push to annex or overshadow Canada.

      • Trade & Energy: If the U.S. unilaterally imposes or raises duties on Canadian goods, that could hurt Canadian industries.
      • Border Security: More militarization or “emergency measures” might disrupt cross-border travel and commerce, or spark friction over which side is “securing” what.
      • Ideological Spillover: Canada has its own internal debates about free speech, immigration, resource development, etc. A dramatic U.S. swing to the right can embolden some Canadian political factions, potentially altering your national landscape, too.

9. Coping with the Shock

      1. Stay Informed, but Pace Yourself: The volume of executive actions can be dizzying. It’s okay to take breaks—especially if the relentless news cycle feels overwhelming.
      2. Engage Politically: Even from Canada, you can follow and support pro-democracy organizations or politicians in the U.S. who push back on radical shifts. Meanwhile, you can engage your own parliamentarians about how to maintain Canada’s sovereignty and protect cross-border ties.
      3. Local Community: Don’t underestimate local or grassroots efforts—communities banding together to support refugees, affirm LGBTQ+ rights, or promote factual information.
      4. Self-Care & Perspective: You mention being 62, having lived a stable life. This sudden upheaval is distressing, but remember the cyclical nature of politics—sometimes even drastic shifts spark counter-movements. Keep your close relationships strong, savor what you can in daily life.

Final Thoughts

Reading this gargantuan list of executive orders and memoranda, it’s clear the administration is blitzing the system—rewriting American policy on everything from foreign aid to domestic culture in a matter of weeks. Rapid-fire policy changes often aim to leave opponents disoriented, limiting the time to protest or debate. That can create deep scars on institutions that took decades to build.

Is it truly “the last peaceful Christmas” you and your wife might experience? Hopefully not. But it’s rational to be worried. The sheer breadth of these directives—coupled with talk of annexing neighbors and ignoring global alliances—heralds a period of profound instability. Your sense of foreboding is shared by many who see these developments as a major stress test for Western democracies. Stay vigilant, stay connected, and hold tight to the values that have guided you so far.

Interesting times we live in.

 Posted by at 10:48 pm
Feb 162025
 

To all who believe that concerns about Trump’s rapid actions — from his dismantling of the US government, following the Project 2025 playbook with the help of Elon Musk to his threats to annex Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal or his attempt to play a much greedier, more corrupt version of Chamberlain in a peace settlement forced upon Ukraine — are not to be taken seriously, here is a cautionary tale, in the form of an editorial from the February 2, 1933 issue of Der Israelit, a leading voice of German Jewry at the time (English translation below):

Die neue Lage

Der Israelit, Heft 5, 02.02.1933

Das Kabinett Hitler, das sich am Montag Mittag in Berlin etabliert hat, bedeutet eine schwere stimmungsmäßige Belastung der ganzen deutschen Judenheit, ja, darüber hinaus, aller der Kreise, die in der Ueberspitzung des nationalistischen Rassen-Fanatismus unserer Tage ein Hemmnis auf dem Wege menschlicher Besittung und weltgeschichtlichen Fortschritts erblicken.

Zwar sind wir keineswegs der Meinung, daß Herr Hitler und seine Freunde, einmal in den Besitz der lange erstrebten Macht gelangt, nun etwa nach dem Rezept des „Angriff“ oder des „Völkischen Beobachters“ vorgehn und kurzer Hand die deutschen Juden ihrer verfassungsmäßigen Rechte entkleiden, sie in ein Rassen-Ghetto sperren oder den Raub- und Mord-Instinkten des Pöbels preisgeben werden. Das können sie nicht nur nicht, weil ihre Macht ja durch eine ganze Reihe anderer Machtfaktoren vom Reichspräsidenten bis zu den Nachbarparteien, beschränkt ist, sondern sie wollen es sicherlich auch gar nicht; denn die ganze Atmosphäre auf der Höhe einer europäischen Weltmacht, die ja mitten im Konzert der Kulturvölker stehn und bleiben will, und dazu das Bewußtsein, in der Wilhelmstraße nun der Notwendigkeit des demagogischen Werbens um den dröhnenden Beifall turbulenter Volksversammlungen bis auf weiteres überhoben zu sein, ist der ethischen Besinnung auf das bessere Selbst günstiger als die bisherige Oppositionsstellung. Den Mitkämpfern von gestern, den Parteifreunden, vermag der neue preußische Innenminister durch Erneuerung des großen Beamtenkörpers in nationalsozialistischem Sinne viel realere Dienste zu leisten als durch offene Zugeständnisse an den brutalen Judenhaß.

Trotzdem wäre es sträflicher Optimismus, sich des Ernstes der Lage nicht bewußt zu sein. Je weniger die neuen Männer dem mit Hunger und Not verzweifelt ringenden deutschen Volk durch gesetzgeberische Wunder wirkliche Hilfe zu bringen vermögen, desto näher liet für sie der Wunsch, ut aliquid feci videatur doch wenigstens ein paar Absätze aus dem rassentheoretischen Programm der Partei in die politische Wirklichkeit umzusetzen, was ohne sensationelle und kompromittierende Judengesetze auf dem Wege des „trockenen Pogroms“, der systematischen Aussperrung und Aushungerung der Juden im wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Leben leicht geschehen kann.

Inwieweit in einem nationalsozialistischen Beamtenkörper das alte preußische Beamtenpflichtgefühl über die so lange gepflegten antisemitischen Instinkte Herr werden und Schikanen und Rechtsverkürzungen gegenüber Juden ausschließen wird, in wieweit eine Polizei, die einen Nationalsozialisten als obersten Chef über sich weiß, in jedem Einzelfall zuverlässig und unparteiisch bleiben wird, wenn es sich um Juden (oder gar um sozialistische oder kommunistische Staatsbürger) handelt – das sind Fragen und Zweifel, über deren Berechtigung nur die Zukunft entscheiden kann.

Wie die Dinge liegen, scheint es uns noch das kleinere Uebel zu sein, daß durch Tolerierung der neuen Regierung von Seiten des Zentrums die parlamentarische Basis und Kontrolle – trotz eines befristeten Ermächtigungsgesetzes – wenigstens grundsätzlich aufrechterhalten bleibt (man denke zum Beispiel nur an die Gefahren, die sonst der שחיטה drohen), als wenn ein Mißtrauensvotum des Reichstags die Auflösung mit allen ins Uferlose sich erstreckenden Aspekten aus Diktatur und Staatsnotstands-Experimenten herbeiführt.

Or, in English:

The New Situation

Der Israelit, Issue 5, 02.02.1933

The Hitler cabinet, which established itself in Berlin on Monday afternoon, represents a severe emotional burden for all German Jewry, and beyond that, for all circles that see in the exaggeration of today’s nationalist racial fanaticism an obstacle on the path of human civilization and historical progress.

To be sure, we are by no means of the opinion that Mr. Hitler and his friends, having finally attained their long-sought power, will now proceed according to the recipe of the “Angriff” or the “Völkischer Beobachter” and summarily strip German Jews of their constitutional rights, confine them to a racial ghetto, or abandon them to the predatory and murderous instincts of the mob. They not only cannot do this because their power is limited by a whole series of other power factors from the Reich President to the neighboring parties, but they certainly do not want to do it either; for the whole atmosphere at the height of a European world power, which wants to and must remain in the concert of civilized nations, and in addition, the awareness of being relieved for the time being of the necessity of demagogic wooing for the thunderous applause of turbulent mass rallies in the Wilhelmstrasse, is more conducive to ethical reflection on one’s better self than the previous opposition position. The new Prussian Minister of the Interior can render much more real services to yesterday’s fellow combatants, the party friends, by renewing the large civil service corps in a National Socialist sense than by open concessions to brutal Jew-hatred.

Nevertheless, it would be criminal optimism not to be aware of the seriousness of the situation. The less the new men are able to bring real help to the German people desperately struggling with hunger and misery through legislative miracles, the closer lies for them the desire, ut aliquid feci videatur, to at least implement a few paragraphs from the party’s racial theoretical program into political reality, which can easily happen without sensational and compromising Jewish laws by way of the “dry pogrom,” the systematic exclusion and starvation of Jews in economic and cultural life.

To what extent the old Prussian sense of official duty will prevail over the long-nurtured anti-Semitic instincts in a National Socialist civil service corps and exclude harassment and curtailment of rights against Jews, to what extent a police force that knows it has a National Socialist as its supreme chief will remain reliable and impartial in every individual case when it comes to Jews (or even socialist or communist citizens) – these are questions and doubts whose justification only the future can decide.

As things stand, it seems to us to be the lesser evil that through the toleration of the new government by the Center Party, the parliamentary basis and control – despite a time-limited enabling act – at least in principle remains intact (one need only think, for example, of the dangers that would otherwise threaten שחיטה*, than if a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag were to bring about dissolution with all its boundless aspects of dictatorship and state of emergency experiments.

*shechita, ritual slaughter

We all know what actually happened in the twelve years that followed this change in government in Berlin.

We do not yet know what is going to happen with the Western alliance, or the United States, in the coming years. But there is zero reason for optimism.

 Posted by at 4:01 pm
Feb 162025
 

I am almost out of time, but not quite: it’s still February 15 in much of Canada.

The 60th anniversary of the first unfurling of our Maple Leaf flag.

Now I don’t usually engage in patriotic-nationalistic bull-baloney, and it’s not usually a Canadian thing in any case.

However, in light of our American “friends” declaring a trade war on our country and expressing a desire to annex Canada as the “51st state”, I feel the need, really the strong urge, to do so.

Allow me to advocate again that Canada needs a strong, independent national defence capability, and that we must seriously contemplate, as a one-time participant in the famed Manhattan project, re-establishing ourselves as an independent nuclear power with a credible nuclear deterrent and do so before it’s too late. What else can we do to guarantee the souvereignty of an underpopulated country with highly desirable natural resources, sandwiched between rabid warmongering neofascist Putinistan and the mad personality cult of Trumpland?

 Posted by at 1:18 am
Feb 032025
 

How did we get here, asks the CBC rhetorically, as they recount the events that led to Trump’s announcement of across-the-board tariffs on Canadian imports to the United States.

On Nov. 5, Americans chose Donald Trump to be their next president. Twenty days later, Trump announced, via a post to his own social-media platform, that he would apply a 25 per cent tariff to all products imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico — a response, he claimed, to the fact that people and illegal drugs were entering the United States from those two countries.

At least in the case of Canada, this was an irrational justification. Seizures of fentanyl at America’s northern border represented 0.08 per cent of all fentanyl seized by American officials in the last fiscal year. The number of people entering the United States through Canada has also been a fraction of the total number of people entering via Mexico.

They also wonder if this might be a shot in the arm for Canadian patriotism. Damn right it will be and for a damn good reason:

But if American democracy continues down a dark path, not being American might be more than an argument against annexation. In that case, as Rob Goodman, an author and professor of politics and public administration at Toronto Metropolitan University, has written, “Canadian distinctiveness” might be not a “vanity object,” but an “essential safeguard of Canadian democracy.”

Again and again, I am reminded of the television adaptation of The Handmaid Tale, depicting a diminished, yet independent Canada where life remains reasonably normal even as south of the border, a country that no longer calls itself the United States of America but is renamed The Republic of Gilead, chooses totalitarianism. No wonder that even our cats seem to be concerned…

Some economists worry that fighting back against Trump’s tariffs is a losing proposition. I don’t think so. Canada’s economy is small compared to that of the US but not that small, and we have something America does not: the resilience of a people determined to fight back against a former friend who so blatantly betrays us. Yes, we will pay more at the grocery counter. We know that. Yes, American goods will disappear from shelves: in fact we will help remove them. But if this is how Trump thinks he can coerce Canada to become the “51st state”, I think I speak for the overwhelming majority of my compatriots when I respond with a resounding (even if un-Canadian in its directness) fuck off. Va chier.

In short: This is not a joke anymore. What Trump is doing is how a country treats its worst enemies, not its friends. If Trump thinks Canada is a pushover, I think he’s in for an even nastier surprise than his best buddy in Moscow when he attacked Ukraine. Let’s hope we never find out just how tough and resilient Canadians will be when backstabbed.

Friends of mine used to think (perhaps not anymore) that I went stark raving mad when I suggested that Canada should rapidly initiate an independent weapons program and build a credible nuclear deterrent. We have the know-how, the materials, we have the technology and the means. As to why? Consider this is a great, rich, but underpopulated country, sandwiched between tyrannical, warmongering Putinistan across the North Pole to the north and the rabid personality cult of Trumpland to the south, and you have your answer.

 Posted by at 2:54 am
Jan 302025
 

Repeatedly, I see questions on Quora, asking why Canada resists Trump’s suggestion of becoming the 51st state. Why bother going through the likely hardships instead of giving in to Mr. Trump’s will?

Very well, allow me to offer my own contribution, to help the process along. Here, I designed a nice voting slip that could be used for this purpose. The date, of course, can be easily changed.

I must confess that the idea is not original. I had help, an elegant historical precedent that, I think, is perfectly suitable for this purpose:

I hope my contribution is received in the same spirit in which it is offered, and perhaps thanked by a nice, “from the heart” gesture (with the right arm properly extended of course) by those who approve.

PDF is available upon request.

 Posted by at 1:02 am
Jan 182025
 

Here is my attempt to remind our illustrious world leaders of the importance of proper cartography:

Is it really too much to hope for that they respect the esteemed profession of mapmaking?

 Posted by at 3:07 pm
Jan 082025
 

We are barely a week into the new year, 2025. Yet here are some news items that would have sounded like outlandish B-movie nonsense just a few years ago.

  • The incoming president-elect of the United States expressed his interest in annexing Greenland, and did not rule out the use of force against a NATO ally;
  • The incoming president-elect of the United States expressed his interest in reoccupying the Panama Canal zone and did not rule out the use of force;
  • The incoming president-elect mused about turning Canada into the 51st state and did not rule out the use of “economic force” to accomplish this;
  • Ukraine’s offensive in Russia’s Kursk region led to a large number of casualties on the Russian side, including thousands of North Korean troops;
  • North Korea successfully tested a new intermediate-range missile;
  • An article in Foreign Affairs magazine argues that South Korea should acquire nuclear capability for deterrence;
  • After several similar incidents involving Russian ships in the Baltic Sea, now a Chinese vessel damaged undersea cables connecting Taiwan;
  • A far-right politician in EU member state Austria is set to form the next government of the country;
  • Alien ship set to land in New York’s Central Park turns back at the last minute – “Too dangerous, no intelligent life,” they message their home planet.

OK, I threw in the last one. But the rest? In 2025? Aren’t they just as outlandish as the bit about aliens? Aren’t we, and by that I mean the whole human race, supposed to be, you know, a tad more intelligent?

Guess not. Can’t wait for the world to be taken over by AI-assisted cats.

 Posted by at 4:47 am
Jan 042025
 

I don’t much watch news channels anymore, but earlier today, I caught a fragment of a report arguing that voters are not rejecting the left because of the economy; that the shift to the right is occurring at a time when the economy is doing fairly well, and that there was no similar shift to the right during the last major economic crisis.

A few hours later (or maybe less) on the same channel I caught a fragment of a report about CEO pay here in Canada: for the top 100 (?) companies, it is now well over 200 times the average worker’s salary. The report pointed out that barely more than a decade ago, it was “only” a little over 100 times the average worker’s salary.

So perhaps, just perhaps, it’s the economy after all?

One of the better attempts by Midjourney

I mean, maybe the economy is doing great insofar as macroeconomic indicators are concerned. But we don’t live off macroeconomic indicators. We do not pay with macroeconomic indicators for groceries at Loblaws, nor do banks accept macroeconomic indicators in lieu of a mortgage payment. And it doesn’t matter if the economy is doing great overall, if rising inequality means the middle class is left behind.

And this is how we end up in dangerous times, in ways already well understood by Aristotle some 2600 years ago. The unhappiness is palpable. This drives people to political extremism. Yet all too often, those with the power to do something about it just congratulate themselves on an economy doing great, and express incomprehension when confronted with dissatisfied voters. Must be bad messaging, they say. Perhaps foreign interference. Stupid people falling for populism.

All of the above exists of course. But the root cause, I think, is much simpler: For most voters, the economy (the economy that they experience paycheck-to-paycheck, the economy they experience at the grocery store checkout counter, at the bank when trying to get a mortgage) is not doing great. In fact, it is doing terribly. And they are getting really pissed off about it. Which of course means fertile ground for political populism.

 Posted by at 2:58 am
Dec 112024
 

Many expressed support, perhaps even admiration for the young man who killed the Brian Thompson, the CEO of the insurance company UnitedHealthcare last week. The reason: the company is universally despised, notorious for the zeal with which it denies claims or makes life otherwise difficult for insured Americans.

However, therein lies the problem. The company is doing EXACTLY WHAT IT IS EXPECTED TO DO. Apologies for the all caps but I need to stress: Commercial companies are not charities. They do not exist to make life easy or pleasant for their customers. They have one goal and one goal only: MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE. Within the confines of the law of course, but not confined by anything else. In particular, not confined by compassion, empathy, or social responsibility.

Brian Thompson did exactly what he was supposed to do as the CEO of a commercial company: he did his best to maximize shareholder value. Had he acted otherwise: had he chosen to place his personal values ahead of his duties as CEO, he could have been held even criminally liable, for failing to act in the interests of his company’s shareholder.

Yet for this, he was killed.

One may wonder: Don’t Americans deserve better? But that’s the wrong question. Health care is not something that is “given” to Americans by some higher power. The health care system—in particular, a for-profit health care system dominated by private insurers—is what a majority of Americans repeatedly CHOSE to have. Many of them speak disparagingly of the single payer, universal health care systems that exist in various forms here in Canada, in the United Kingdom, or in the European Union. “Socialist medicine,” they tell us, exaggerating the systems’ shortcomings while glossing over one basic fact: No one is left without necessary medical care in either Canada or Europe, and no one is going bankrupt due to unexpected, astronomical medical expenses.

In the end, Mr. Thompson was murdered for doing precisely what he was supposed to do: faithfully managing a FOR PROFIT corporation to the benefit of its shareholders. And the system remains the same. Nothing changes, except that health care might end up being a tad more expensive in the future, because now there will be the added expense associated with higher life insurance premiums and personal bodyguards for insurance company top brass.

 Posted by at 1:40 am
Dec 022024
 

Today I read the first few words of an article in The New Yorker: “Biden’s Pardon of Hunter Further Undermines…”

For the briefest of moments I saw a ray of hope. Perhaps The New Yorker‘s writers realized what really is at stake? Perhaps they were concerned about the trends undermining the rule of law?

Sadly, no. The missing expression (the title was truncated to fit into the column display presented by my e-mail program) was “… His Legacy”. That’s all they were concerned about. Biden’s legacy. The broader context: tactical victories and defeats in the never-ending political warfare in the United States.

One of my cats, mourning the rule of law…

Watching polarized American politics in recent years, it was evident that both sides were consumed by ideology and the desire to defeat the opposing side. Republicans were busy building an anti-establishment creed along with the alarming personality cult of Trump; meanwhile, Democrats have gone overboard with woke nonsense, from cancel culture to fights over pronouns to defunding the police. Republicans went out of their way to “own the Libs”, while Democrats strived to end the “white supremacist patriarchy”. However, there was one crucial difference: By and large (and notwithstanding Republican accusations about “weaponizing” the government), the Democrats mostly played by the rules, i.e., they supported the rules-based system of the American Republic, whereas Republicans declared the system itself, the “deep state”, their key enemy. As January 6, 2020 demonstrated, they were quite willing to step outside the boundaries of the rule of law to have their way.

This, of course, put Democrats at a disadvantage, akin to fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

But now, I think, this is about to change. Call it Joe Biden’s “fuck you” moment: he decided to use his presidential powers to pardon his own son, Hunter Biden, despite repeated assurances that he had no plans to do so.

I really cannot blame him. When the president-elect is a convicted felon, when many of his nominees for key positions are themselves at the very least the targets of credible accusations of criminal behavior, I suspect Biden had enough, playing by the rules. (Technically speaking it is of course not against the rules for the President to pardon his own family members, even though it is obviously a massive conflict of interest.)

This, I think, is a pivotal, watershed moment, however. By pardoning Hunter, Biden basically declared that the rules no longer apply to their side either. This seems to be yet another nail in the coffin of the great American experiment. Once again I see historical parallels. Two thousand years ago, it was Brutus and his co-conspirators who decided that the rules no longer apply to them either. Granted, pardoning a family member is not quite on par with assassinating a Dictator, but the undercurrent is the same: The rule of law no longer matters. We may yet be generations away from the leaders of America to openly declare themselves emperors, but this is yet another crucial step towards a system of government in which the “first among equals”, the country’s head of state and head of government, is not really an equal anymore but someone entirely above the law.

One of the secrets of the success of the Roman Empire was the fact that the first emperor, Gaius Octavius, better known by the family name he adopted and the title bestowed upon him by the Roman Senate as Augustus Caesar, was truly competent. I don’t expect competence from Trump. However, is VP, J. D. Vance, is another matter. That gentleman seems frighteningly intelligent and ruthless. Makes me wonder if he is, in fact, going to become the de facto first emperor of an emerging imperial United States of America; our modern-day Octavius.

Oh well, interesting times. Love it, to be honest. Things are about to get really… fascinating.

 Posted by at 10:46 pm
Nov 092024
 

In the days following Tuesday’s historic US elections, I’ve seen many reactions by liberals: friends, acquaintences, public figures like journalists.

With few exceptions, almost all of them appear to have jumped to the wrong conclusions. “Putin won this election,” they said. “Harris should have focused on immigration,” they told us. “We underestimated the stupidity,” they complained. “They’re all Nazis,” I’m told.

Nope. Trump voters are not stupid. It was not Russian propaganda that decided the outcome. You won’t shame them into voting Democrat by comparing them to the Nazis. Nor did the result have anything to do with any specific tactical decisions by the Democratic campaign.

This election—which may have tragic, historic consequences concerning the stability and viability of the Western world order that dominated the planet and ushered in an unprecedented period of relative peace and prosperity in the wake of 1945—was decided by factors that were known to Aristotle more than 2500 years ago.

Portrait of Aristoteles. Copy of the Imperial era (1st or 2nd century) of a lost bronze sculpture made by Lysippos

Now in all states there are three elements: one class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean,” he writes in Politics*. “It is admitted that moderation and the mean are best,” he continues, warning us that when the very rich and the very poor dominate over the mean, “thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying“.  This leads him to his key conclusion: “But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the city which is composed of middle-class citizens is necessarily best governed; they are, as we say, the natural elements of a state. And this is the class of citizens which is most secure in a state, for they do not, like the poor, covet their neighbours’ goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor covet the goods of the rich.

And look at our world in 2024. Throughout the Western hemisphere, the middle class is in retreat. Despite the rise in GDP, incomes remain stagnant, barely keeping up with inflation, if that. Housing prices are skyrocketing, making home ownership an unattainable dream for much of the younger generation; even renting a decent home is beyond the reach of many. The wage and income gaps are both on the rise, even as the streets fill up with the homeless, public infrastructure is often crumbling, healthcare systems are under stress and often near the breaking point, even public transportation fails to deliver far too often.

Now you might think that these issues should be top priority for political forces that occupy the left of the political palette. After all, traditionally it’s those on the left who championed these causes, worked in favor of a strong middle class. Not anymore. Even when the left’s agenda is not saturated by woke virtue signaling about pronouns, DEI education, divisive identity politics and other forms of self-serving activism, they failed to address the very concerns that drove far too many voters to vote for Trump. They also missed the elephant in the room: The issues are not specific to the United States. The rise of authoritarians like Orban of Hungary, the success of Brexit, the election of right-wing leaders elsewhere in Europe, the rise of the far-right in Germany are all pointing in the same direction.

Calling Trump voters stupid, racist, fascists is not helpful. Perhaps there were stupid, racist fascists voting for Trump, but the vast majority who voted for him were none of the above. They were concerned citizens, deeply disappointed with the lack of solutions coming from the left. Perhaps they underestimated the dangers represented by a Trump who openly indicated his willingness to weaken democratic institutions, who openly declared the institutions of the American Republic the enemy. Time will tell.

However, the left had a clear path ahead: forget identity politics, virtue signaling, cancel culture, and other forms of radical activism, intolerance in the name of tolerance, illiberal means to enforce the made-up standards of woke liberalism. Focus instead on the issues that matter, promoting real solutions to the problems plaguing the middle class. Because if you don’t, someone else will… or at least they will pretend to do so. And that’s exactly what right-wing populists do.

Perhaps folks on the left should spend a tad more time reading Aristotle.


In case Aristotle is not enough, here’s my collection of posts on Trump 2.0. I collect them here so that I can easily direct folks to this post rather than explain all over again what I think. Anyhow, I still recommend Aristotle over my own pearls of wisdom.

And now that we’re done with this political nonsense, let me go back and do useful things.


*Translation by H. W. C. Davis, Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1908
 Posted by at 5:14 pm
Nov 062024
 

Earlier tonight, I heard a Republican strategist on CBC News telling us not to worry if Trump wins: his bark is worse than his bite.

Damn, I hope he is right. But historical precedents suggest otherwise. I am, of course, especially reminded of how Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933; many who supported him were also convinced that his bark was worse than his bite.

Well, it wasn’t. The rest, as they say, is history.

As a matter of fact, perhaps I am an alarmist, but I tend to think of something else after the spectacle tonight. It is what became perhaps the most iconic moment from the entire Star Wars franchise: the recognition by Padmé Amidala of what just happened when the Galactic Senate granted extraordinary powers to chancellor Palpatine.

Coming back from the land of science-fiction cautionary tales to that of real history: In early August 1914, Sir Edward Grey, Britain’s foreign secretary remarked that the lights were going out all over Europe. Today… well, America was called by the late Ronald Reagan the shining city on the hill of liberal democracy. The lights of this great shining city might have been extinguished tonight. There are other lights of liberal democracy still shining brightly, including the lights here in Canada, but they are much less powerful and rapidly diminishing in number. Liberal democracy, which has always been an outlier in the course of human history, is now fully in retreat.

And, well, I daresay many who call themselves “liberals” bear at least some responsibility. Over the past few decades, life for many in the Western world stagnated or became worse. Incomes barely kept up with inflation, homes became unaffordable. The income and wealth gap between rich and poor rose. Families could no longer promise their children a life that, never mind better, would be at least as good as the lives of their parents. Public infrastructure was often neglected, health care systems remained underfunded. Many Western cities saw a palpable rise in homelessness and visible poverty: Just look at the number of homeless right here on the main streets of downtown Ottawa, minutes from Parliament Hill.

Leaders and activists on the left had ample chance to step in, offer and, if in power, implement real, forward-looking solutions. Instead, they chose to focus on, ahem, the “important” problems of the day: proper pronouns for everyone, DEI programs at workplaces, stamping out white supremacism in math education (I kid you not! Wish it was a joke) and other pressing issues. In light of that, why is anyone surprised that populism won the day?

Sadly I am not. Much as I rooted for Harris, I predicted a Trump victory, and it appears that I was not wrong.

Now we get a chance to find out if that CBC analyst was right after all. Is the bark worse than the bite? I’m not holding my breath…

 Posted by at 3:20 am
Oct 302024
 

Here’s a pro-Trump view of the recent Trump rally, shared by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in his October 30 “Global Briefing” newsletter:

Americans are tired of living in survival mode. Raging wars, a crippled economy, an immigration crisis, a growing chasm of political division, and rapid inflation have made Americans realize that they want joy again, they want unity again, and they want to dream again. Standing in such a significant arena, surrounded by a sea of red hats and adoring, cheering Trump fans, I couldn’t help but get emotional about how historic this moment in time is for our country. I was 14 years old when Trump was elected president and have, like many of his other supporters, been forced to deal with the vitriol, insults, and hatred of the left over the past eight years. It has often been tiresome to stand up for my own beliefs in the face of such fierce adversity. But watching Trump on that glorious stage at Madison Square Garden reminded me—reminded all Americans—of what lies ahead with a Trump presidency: hope. And that is always worth fighting for.

To say that these words — honest, heartfelt no doubt — give me the creeps is the understatement of the year. What these words actually remind me of is this immortal scene from the film Cabaret:

Yes, they were earnest. Their feelings were true. And that’s what makes this scene one of the most disturbing scenes ever in movie history.

 Posted by at 6:28 pm
Oct 282024
 

Recently, a friend of mine remarked on the fact that Americans are disillusioned with Democrats, despite the fact that the US economy is doing splendidly well.

It is true. The productivity of the US economy is nothing short spectacular.

Trouble is… it’s not helping families. This Wikipedia chart tells the story (though there are many other, similar charts, comparing family wealth, incomes, and other measures of inequality).

What this chart tells us is that the living standards of typical American families have been stagnant for a quarter century or more. No matter what they do, they are stuck. Their lives are not getting any better, even as America produces one billionaire after another, with some of them, like Musk, predicted to become trillionaires within the next decade or two.

Yes, American voters are concerned about the economy. But the economy they’re concerned about is not the economy that is reflected by macroeconomic statistics like GDP growth. They are concerned about the economies of their own families. What they can afford. Can they buy a house. Can they replace an aging vehicle.

And increasingly, they cannot. Median family wealth is stagnant while housing prices rise. Tuition fees rise, along with student debt. Things are not getting any better, and in particular, parents cannot promise their children a life better than their own.

This is a hotbed for populism, of course. They sound the battle cry: Kick out those immigrants! Erect trade barriers! Lower those taxes! Well, guess who benefits when that happens:

After all, when the bottom half of Americans are not doing well, the perfect solution is to lower the taxes for tycoons and captains of industry, right? Because of… I don’t know, trickle down? Or just blame yourself for your own misfortune?

So well, yes, it’s the economy, stupid. But make sure you read the right economic statistics. The numbers that actually reflect the realities of life of most Americans.

 Posted by at 12:39 am
Oct 242024
 

No, I did not suddenly have a change of heart concerning Trump’s likely victory and the resulting, unprecedented subversion of American democracy that I expect to see.

I just turned full-blown cynic.

I am, after all, 61 years old with no children to worry about. Even if I remain healthy for a long time to come, the bulk of my life is very obviously behind me, not ahead of me. And I lived that life during an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity, unique in the history of humanity. (No, not perfect. But unprecedented and unique in extent and duration.) I never knew hunger, never had existential fears, never was deprived of my most basic rights. So who am I to complain?

But now, things are about to get exciting. No, not in a good way, but exciting nonetheless. And as I said multiple times in the past, Trump is but a symptom. Even if he loses this election, the underlying causes remain. Rising inequality. A stagnant middle class. Worsening living standards, the inability to offer the new generation a better life, or at least a life comparable to that of their parents. Social tensions reignited, often by opportunistic activists who’d rather see the wounds fester (so they can profit from them) than heal. None of these go away even if Trump drops dead tomorrow. And it transcends the United States. The issues exist here in Canada, throughout Europe and elsewhere. Regimes opposed to the very concept of liberal democracy are taking notice, and playing this to their advantage.

What will be the ultimate outcome? A major war is a near certainty, in my opinion. Collapse of many democracies is likely, with the exception of those few that have within them the will to reform, and also have the ability to protect their borders. The collapse of the global, interconnected economy will bring insane suffering and only play into the hands of future autocrats.

Illustration by DALL-E

I have no idea when the proverbial poo will collide with the ventilator. But collide it will, and it will happen sooner, rather than later. I don’t think the world has been this close to the brink at any moment in my lifetime, anytime since 1945 as a matter of fact. But now I no longer fear that future. Rather, I have become mighty curious. It is, after all, not every day that one gets a chance to witness such a monumental moment in history, something on the scale of the collapse of the Roman Republic, at the very least.

 Posted by at 12:17 am
Oct 172024
 

First, let me express my unbridled optimism: Yes, there will be history books in the future. I hope.

What will they say about our present time? Nothing encouraging, I fear.

They’ll note the date October 17, 2024, as the date when Ukraine basically presented a nuclear ultimatum: If the country is not welcome into NATO, at some point in the future it may very well rearm itself with nuclear weapons. Which, arguably, it has every right to do, since 30 years ago Ukraine gave up what was then the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for supposedly robust security guarantees by, among other states, the Russian Federation.

In unrelated news, several days ago there was a minor earthquake registered in the Dnipro region of Ukraine. Which, incidentally, supposedly coincides with some old Soviet weapons testing grounds. Or not. Ukrainians say the epicenter was several kilometers below the surface and the world is not alarmed. Still…

One of Midjourney’s suggestions for the cover of a future history book

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is gaining. If I had to bet my money, I’d bet on him winning in November. The consequences will likely be catastrophic, both for democracy within the American Republic and for NATO and the broader Western democratic alliance.

In my country of birth, Hungary, Orban continues to reign supreme. And he’s no longer the outlier in Europe: increasingly, nationalists and authoritarians are gaining elsewhere on the continent.

Elsewhere, China continues its saber-rattling at Taiwan, North Korea now sends soldiers to help Russia, the Middle Eastern conflict widens, there’s even a spat between Canada and India over an Indian assassionation of a Sikh nationalist on Canadian soil not long ago.

In short, let me not mince words about this: The world is fucked up badly, and it’s becoming more and more fucked up each and every passing day.

Meh. I am 61, and I have no children to worry about. So maybe I’ll just lean back and watch the show? It’s about to get really exciting.

But yes, I still hope that there will be future history books.

 Posted by at 11:28 pm
Oct 112024
 

Recently I invented two nightmare scenarios concerning American politics. Well, how about a third one.

Imagine for a moment that January 20 comes about; preceded by a period of two months loaded with crazy lawsuits, state electoral offices consumed with conspiracy theories, disputed outcomes. Ultimately, a fatally divided Supreme Court with, say, five conservative justices on one side, one conservative with second thoughts (arguably more interested in protecting the US Constitution than granting free reign to Trumpists) and three liberals on the other.

So when the fateful day comes, inauguration, the world witnesses the most alarming spectacle. Even as the five conservatives swear in Trump, across town, the remaining four justices do the same with Harris.

Midjourney does not let me depict Trump or Harris directly, but it was willing to produce this image of competing Roman emperors.

Looking at history as a guide, the outcome will likely not be pretty. There were competing emperors in the history of the Roman Empire, and competing popes in the history of the Catholic Church. The result was often (always?) violence, bloodshed, suffering. We’ve not seen something like this in functioning modern democracies (even the US Civil War as a more, well, orderly business) but I expect the worst.

Unlikely? Thankfully so. Impossible? Not anymore, I think, and that speaks volumes about the times in which we live.

 Posted by at 6:43 pm