Trudeau Says MAGA. MAGA Reacts In MAGA-esque Manner

.

.

I already had a Poilièvre piece underway that I'd decided to toss in order to focus on coding, but recent events have turned my assumptions about his strategy into certainties, which PM Trudeau imprudently identified as "MAGA", and I couldn't imagine myself not getting a word in, though I did end up mostly doing so through a boob named Brian because, that whole MAGA thing,  what truly matters about it isn't Trump, really, it's his attitude toward, and approach with, the media. The entirety of the media seem to have focused on surface points that render a comparison between Trump and the Conservative opposition leader somewhat humorous, while not seeing the real danger to the political landscape Poilièvre presents, hence, a topic worthy of a "last post" nonetheless, though I may be lacking some of the oomph it deserves to have had added in the conclusion. 

el-Musk-On

I've never been a fan of Elon Musk, and a "Saviour of Free Speech" is the last thing that came to mind when he bought Twitter, especially that he'd done so at such a grossly inflated price, and with just a nudge of pressure from the government... unless there's something he's not telling us? That aspect actually suggests that Musk is "in bed" with the Establishment or a segment of it, and not that he's a spineless, all-talk-no-balls dweeb.

However, lately, he has taken particular stances and made specific comments that surprised me, managing to force a reconsideration in his respect, though I'm far from being ready to elevate him in any manner resembling what's seen from the Muskites (Muskers?).

And I've to agree that he hasn't displayed the best attitude or course in regard to his handling of the advertising ban that corporations are imposing on X due to Musk's supposedly anti-Semitic post, but I do side wholly with him in that fight. It's a case that raises many ethical and free speech questions.

But, surely, you interject, companies should have the right to decide where their ad dollars go?!

I fully agree. But it becomes a whole other ball game and a potentially serious problem when a corporation promotes such an act and encourages others to do so as well by attaching a moral absolute to such an act targeting one's position on a conflict, it being based on false facts and manipulative modes of bullying that are absorbed as being "for the moral good" whilst, however, wholly betraying the unsubstantiated, purely subjective nature that underlies the thinking behind such actions, for if such weren't the case they'd support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel and promote that even more aggressively than the bully's tantrum they're throwing Musk's way.

Also adding hypocrisy to the irony is these corporations' inability to separate the person from the company. While it's true that the head of a company should always reflect a certain image, it's a bogus "rule" that's made valid due to issues that belong to the "public/audience" side of things; what's truly important is whether the 'product' reflects that individual's personal attitude, and making such a claim about X is impossible, the Zionists candidly calling for violence even more openly, and rallying even more brutally candid re-tweets, not hinting at a bias that's in line with one that would justify such a costly and damaging ban, hence, neither does it line up with what Musk is being accused of based on one post.

MAGA. Make Audiences Go Apeshit?

Sure, every outlet leans, but some that didn’t use to do so heavily, and which could be counted on to offer reasonable views and decent takes albeit with a slant, now lean so hard one has to wonder how they still manage to fool anyone they’re straight-shooters and upstanding folks.

No better example than Canada’s National Post (NP) newspaper and digital media.

From the time Conrad Black founded the paper to compete with The Globe and Mail in 1998, to Canwest acquiring it in 2006, to its bankruptcy and the sale of all its publishing assets to Postmedia Network in 2010 to today, it had managed to maintain a certain air of respectability despite the clear lapses into Islamophobia, for which NP had received quite a few complaints from the now defunct Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC)

Per a 2010 survey of Canadians, NP had begun shifting and was then “more likely to be perceived as right of centre by the public than other Canadian news organisations.” According to another conducted in 2017, 48% of Canadians perceived a bias, the finding also indicating that  "the tendency was to see [...] a Conservative bias at the National Post."

Since mid-2020 or so, it’s now competing with The Toronto Sun for roughly the same space. Quebecor Media, which had made it’s fortune with French-language sensationalist tabloid journalism and stretched the formula to English Canada through its Sun Media Corp. subsidiary in 1978, sold Sun Media to Postmedia in 2014.

I’m skipping over much, for Maclean-Hunter, which was purchased by Rogers Communications, had acquired half of Sun Media, while The Toronto Star and Southam Inc. was purchased in 1996 by Hollinger Inc., which was owned by Conrad Black who owned Southam which bought The Financial Post in 1998 and relaunched that as The National Post. But the FP is now still among us...

Today: the offices for both The Sun and The National Post are housed at the same Bloor St. address in Toronto, since 2016. 

We’re assured that both keep separate newsrooms. I’m not sure that that really matters as it doesn’t seem to have had much impact; the slant and spin on anything that can be politicised is practically the same, only the packaging is what truly differentiate the two, unless the full-page Sun Girl pin-up should ever grace Page 3 of NP, at which point only the font and colours will set them apart.

Yes, liberal media has its severe trust-vaporising issues, but there’s two things to keep in mind:

1. Liberal media presents a more humanitarian leaning view and the appearance of having a “Leftist” perspective, but their agendas are very rightwing, this all the more so the larger they are.
2. Because a media espouses conservative-pleasing perspectives heightened by a supposed anti-Woke attitude that satisfies one’s cultivated anti-Trudeau sentiments doesn’t imply that these are any better than the liberal outlets, or that they’re more concerned about you and your needs, unless you’re already wealthy.  

I can hardly be accused of being a hypocrite or one-sided as concerns my criticism of the media—big or small, private or state, left or right, broad or niche; "info handling" and "intent" hold the same moral weight no matter the décor and reach—but those outlets who proudly identify as rightwing and as bastions of Conservatism are at the sleazy and disgusting end of despicable in truly crass and God-awful ways, betraying a misplaced zealotry that manages to add a layer of disgraceful to the despicably disgusting sleaze.

Again: Sure, liberal media is Satan's toilet paper when they wanna be. However, the nature of the lies told and of the type of manipulation that's applied exists in an entirely different sphere for each; liberal media's dark side relating to more obscure matters—oftentimes in relations to "new ground" or foreign ones—that require a bit more sophistication as they usually delve into moral quandaries with no clear-cut course offered, though that's usually so due to liberal-media lies and whatever manufactured crisis gets them rich.

Conservatives are no better on that front but far less likely to yell "Forward!" while running backwards, but whatever peace they may claim to want concerns just one conflict in one location, and that's only to save more money and spend less bullets in one place in order to fight a more efficiently destructive conflict against those becoming too comfy for this current world.

As such, "war", as a whole, quashed across the entire globe... Sure, they'd love that, too, but that's only possible if all US homogeny-challenging nations are pulverized, this being so given Capitalism's tendency to thrive when there's healthy competition.

And, so, albeit true for liberal media in diverging ways, the lies told by conservative media often demand a disturbing level of ignorance that's enforced and twisted into a knowledge-void that's turned inside out and upside down and rendered empty of all sense, and... um... there ya go: Libtard leftist logic, say the folks with no scientific background and very little scientific grounding who are smarter than the vast majority of the earth's population since, after all, they all manage to locate that one study that lays it all out real honest like no other scientist can, hence why it was never submitted to a peer review or why it failed several and the researcher is now reviled... silenced... because the anti-Right Commie radicals took over global Capitalism and  they're in bed with the Big Money, Bigger Guns & Tighter Buns agenda and in league with the anti-Semitic, ESG-snorting, Big-Resetist Woke Warriors.

Repeating the same lies for decades while the rest of the world, backed by science and hard data and all the concrete goodness that rightists identify as no lefty stuff, feelings, apparently, being preferred by radical Commies and Oh-Hey-See Progheads praying to see Arty, a Woke seer who's said to pee standing up despite being born without a penis... because flipping the genders around is how the Palestinian-supporting, Hamas-non-condemning Chinese will ruin hockey and football and destroy America and the West, leaving behind the smoldering ruins of the nuclear family and only one sign on every bathroom.

Tribalities being what they are, calling the tribal behaviour witnessed in recent years a form of "idiotic stupidity with a dollop of dolt, a splash of rash, and a twist of moron," seems like even more of a certainty than death, taxes, and Lindsay Graham, Nikki Haley, and Ben Shapiro joining forces to make sure some people and place get bombed to their atheistic version of Kingdom-come!

In other words, on some issues and on many topics, fighting the type of tribal war that the CPC has clearly opted for demands 'otherization' and a constant and sustained opposition on all the points and wants that those 'others' have made their focus. Given the Liberal's "people focus", this albeit its preference for corporations, missile manufacturers, and its wealthy buddies, the LPC, at least, offers a pretense  and, so, dispenses some 'care', being forced to take some steps in that direction in order to give meat to its marketing and validity to promises so its election campaigns can still set up vote-worthy expectations and feed optimism.

How are conservatives supposed to counter social benefits and better welfare and not come across like a scrooged Ebenezerian ogre that distrusts all things non-supremacist-leaning and foreign... but what can they do? It's the anti-racist racist immigrants' fault, isn't? Since compromises are almost guaranteed to play out more positively for Liberals and NDPs as there's no better way to highlight stick-in-wheel behaviour if applied while a bike is being wheeled out, therefore, the best course is to convince as many as possible that the 'others' are out to screw all with a hidden agenda that's visibly just plain bad, making one a hero for blocking that which the majority want, even those willingly but witlessly fighting against such changes.

Otherwise, the other option relies on exaggerating the hell out of the rare and freakier aspects of anything that can be packaged into a subversive, society-destroying element that gives sense to nonsense battles, providing these are fought within the Culture War.

But there, too, one's range is limited as there's always a risk that one may come out looking like a bigoted navelist willing to crush other's rights in order to avoid having to possibly potentially maybe confront one's fears and, surely, latent homosexuality?

The narrow space that's offered can only be successfully navigated through a complete negation of the 'other's' claims and goals and a thorough vilification of competing parties and any supporters.

If that, to you, sounds anything like the present situation surrounding Hamas and Israel's treatment of any of their supporters, then you may as well throw in India in here, for all are following the same formula, the only real difference being who's the target of the divisive politics served up and where the separation is drawn.

All that to say: All the limitations entail further limitations on the type of stupid that's to be beneficial to one' goal, though there's no limit on the level and intensity of stupidity one can attain.

So, if NP and The Sun are occupying the same space and fighting the same battle, then, there's very little variation possible, and we find both equally caught up in the same shades of stupid, which, in turn, if one still assumed that NP is the more high-brow and serious of the two, then one is quickly dispossessed of such a notion if having paid steady attention to anything within, or adjacent to, politics.

At least the knuckle-dragging apes can feel like higher-brow monkeys, now, though their ascension is merely a stationary welcoming of sinking brows regaling in Sesame-Street-back-alley-styled politics that unite the right in a thick but defiant monobrow.

It's hard to say whether I'm being fed more NP headlines than Sun ones through the usual Big Tech interfaces, but, for all the times I were profoundly irked about a whole class of Sun headlines and texts, that rarely seems to happen now, though it's at least double that as concerns NP, which was a rarity, as even the hardline rightwing op-eds wouldn't boast the juvenile approach tha—Oh, crap! What about the Sun Girl? And why are they all wearing more clothes than in all previous years? Combined? Probably not...

The baseness of their partisan politics that rely on one’s need to toss good sense on the wayside along with facts-a-plenty, and to promote closedmindedness and ignorance in order to counter a progress that no one is entirely promoting—not per what they're opposing—doing so in order to revive false notions of yesteryears while stoking fears of permanent loss, an existential threat that renders retaining one’s present comfort by blindly pushing against the scary side of any change an utmost imperative.

Real brave?

Judging by Sun columnist, Brian Lilley, I'd say: Nope! No courage there. And there's even less substance and wit, hence, there's very little there that's interesting to warrant even reading his column.

But, on the plus side—maybe—a basal dork like Lilley is moving up in this world by simply adding a bit more emphasis to the same stupid he's always possessed, displayed, and enjoyed.

A grown man perpetually stuck in the devious and spiteful narcissism and melodrama of a high-school wallflower contemplating, while in the vapes of weed, a galaxy the size of one's navel which turned out to be smears and a dark rectum, which is par for the course among those who confuse "rector" for "erect".

Lilley. He's a mouth-breathing embodiment of some of the key issues that plague media and society—or, at least, the image he provides for the world through all that he externalises in an effort to be seen as the reflection of a qualified, critical, meaningful, socially-beneficial, and, therefore, financially-rewarded 'commentary'. What I see is a man caught in a reciprocal "reward'  and "degrade" loop that warps one's mind and morals quite rapidly if already possessing weak ones.

He's a very simple-minded and a largely-dishonest moron who'd probability add his number and X handle along with more dick drawings on the bathroom-stall walls if paid to clean them, for he's the kind of drooling tribalist who invests much energy in the bogus and absurd end of the Culture War, someone who spends far too much time blaming and attacking those 'others' for all that he's infinitely more guilty of doing?

Lilley sits among those who truly irritate me, seeing in them no more purpose than six-feet claws dragged across a skyscraper-sized chalkboard. Nothing but imbecilities in an imbecile's info war; negating the 'other' and propping-up one's 'anti-other' in order to save 'good' values making it worth obliterating said values.

I'm not just being mean; all's catty with him—all the time—like a big pussy, high on catnip and with morals of an alley cat that’s playing hellcat in the cat’s cradle, always looking for a catfight against a cool cat, ready to defend a cat burglar and lick a fat cat’s behind the ears, but, with claws as weak as a kitten and being too much of scaredy-cat to step out of the litter box, he saves his ball-chasing nine lives and avoids being badly pawed by claiming he’s got no time to get dragged into anything—he’s gotta earn his kibbles; catch mice—and then curls up in the clumped gravel and turds for a catnap and dreams of giving Catwoman a tongue bath until the copycat spits out a slimy hairball and caterwauls, “Purrfect!”

What? Did the tortoise get your tongue?

Power Poles and Bonus Holes

Here's an excerpt from the latest hairball he vomited up:

People with uteruses. It’s an odd term that rang out several times in the Alberta Legislature this week.

We used to call people with uteruses women, but now, that’s not inclusive enough.

Menstruators, that is what women are now reduced to.

I don’t know a single woman, no matter how progressive and inclusive, who wants to be referred to as a mentrator or a person with a uterus. Increasingly though, we are defeminizing our language around women.

You don’t show respect for non-binary and transgendered people by showing disrespect to women. That’s what the current path of erasing women from our language is doing and we have to put an end to it.

So drop the generic terms like folks with uteruses, menstruators and birthing parent and embrace words like woman and mother.
(Source)

From The Young Turk's Ana Kasparian, such a complaint and position was ill-placed and showed bad judgment but the intent was good and such a claim identified a positive change in Kasparian's mindset, albeit this aspect not being applicable to those concerned by such language. Plus, she addressed it in terms of applying the "person with uterus" to her specifically, a claim that Lilley can't make, while others are more likely to refer to him by another hole that isn't too far from one leading to another type of uterus that's shared by all genders.

From The Sun's Brian Lilley, it's nothing more than destructive whining from a bigot.

Lilley's opening line says it all: "...in the Alberta Legislature..."

Those terms that Lilley and people like Matt Walsh treat with disdain and ridicule, because, well, they are ridiculous, I'll admit, yet add: They're purely for legal purposes; no one expects anyone to use them in lieu of the adopted, generic terms used by Bob Evariyun and Babs Averibawdy-Worcheskschlocstchison-Wang except a few loons and those concerned, but only when it concerns them, these individuals being, generally, far more reasonable about such a practice and its significance than they've been made out to be, oftentimes due to the behaviour of those very few loons.

His opening sentence establishes exactly that: It's ringing out in legal circles, not on sidewalks and offices. And if the law is to apply to all and treat all fairly, then, changes in the language used to identify related events and entities requires that certain terms be changed, either to broaden the scope or to limit the sense that's denotated.

That rightwingers remain obtuse and have amplified this into something that, probability suggests, will never impact them directly in any relevant manner, that's what makes at least 90% of all that falls under the "Culture War" rubric a senselessly heartless and disgusting fight, and one that, ironically, at its heart, goes against everything singled-out as qualities and values that make America great, these serving as the model of an ideal that's been adopted by much of the West, and beyond.

The whole pronoun affair that brought Jordan Peterson fame is a different situation, and one for which I share a certain degree of the ridicule expressed against some of its realisations, though one ought to keep in mind that Peterson had grossly misread the legal implications of the bill in question, making that which brought him wide public attention entirely irrelevant, as far as reality is concerned, anyhow.  

•     •     •

Toilets are nice... Urinals always make great small-talk material, but... um... Conservative Leader Pierre Poilièvre is a dick; no debate there, so what's the link? you may ask as you picture a swimming pool filled with hairy feminine ball-sacks in tight bikinis competing purely for the sake of competition, and not for the prize, sponsorships, or the fame that comes with being on a Wheaties box.

I know. I took the easy road, though, and changed my name to Mary Lou Retton; I tell people I won tons of medals, being the world's top gymnast for a while, but the testosterone involved in reaching that level... it's only natural that I now have a beard and no tits. And with no effort at all, only touching a high-beam once, I'm now famous and still enjoy my penis. Maybe.

Why it's relevant to those Poilièvre-related events I want to discuss is so for the same reasons that make these events of particular interest whilst the events themselves, per se, aren't all that interesting. However, they may appear to be unimpactful, but that's because the direct outcome isn't what one ought to focus on if looking for a meaningful impact; one's attention ought to be on the method used to attain it, and the success of such tactics shouldn't be judged solely on the result that's obtained.

That's what's so very MAGA-esque about Poilièvre: the very type of populist approach he's adopted; it's not that he's a "Trump" in that he's emulating personal behaviours or that he's adopted mannerisms, sayings, plans, attitudes, or policy positions that suddenly mirror Trump's, it's the game he's playing and the elements that are central to his strategy that validate PM Trudeau's MAGA claim; it's the way Trudeau made the claim, which presupposed a wider awareness of the intended significance underlying such a claim, that deserves criticism, should one be compelled to do so.

I recognized what had been an inarguable change—a sudden shift in Poilièvre's politics and a course that paralleled MAGA's—in January 2022, and I'd discussed precisely that on 15-Feb-2022, having spotted him take a clear turn toward a Trump-influenced, US-styled tribal approach to politics during the "Freedom Convoy", Alberta MP Michelle Rempel Garner's online efforts and presence offering a sharp contrast with Poilièvre's embrace of sensationalist and conspiracy-fraught tactics.

I'd even mentioned: "Things are taking a turn in Canada, and if we're not careful, things are going to be taking a hard Right. Remember Brian Mulroney? We may face worse."

By the way: Those having declared Justin Trudeau the worst PM, clearly, you've forgotten about about Mulroney, which was our Reagan and Thatcher wrapped up in one big chin to nudge the neolib way forward under a corpo-loving and federalism-degrading Meech Lake Accord disaccord, armed with a lopsidedly-detrimental NAFTA, and sparking a post-Mulroney Quebec fueled once again with a burning desire to secede from Canada.

You may have read or heard Mulroney's absurdly and fanatically deranged, hardcore-Zionist speech on the Palestinian-Israeli situation he gave at  the World Jewish Congress Theodor Herzl Award gala held in New York two weeks ago? Here it is:  Hamas answered Hitler's call: Read Brian Mulroney's speech to the World Jewish Congress | National Post

•     •     •

Here's the dander on the sticky trichobezoars he spins into hairy yarns groomed out of bald-faced lies that he then vomits up in the kitty litter before calling it a day, heading home to his din-din:

“Trudeau accused the Poilievre Conservatives of adopting “a right-wing, American MAGA-influenced thinking” and turning their backs on Ukraine. His evidence, the Conservatives voted against updating the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, which the Harper government originally negotiated and signed.

“The truth is the Conservatives objected to language in the trade deal, inserted late by the Liberals, that they feel enshrines Canada’s carbon tax in an international treaty. That and language around a carbon tax that isn’t in our free trade deals with the United States, Europe or the Pacific Rim but that the Liberals insisted putting into a trade deal with a country we don’t do much trade with.”

All's spotty without a leopard! Let's set that aside for a few seconds to look at some of the headlines on the matter that had come out, below.

There's a stark difference between The Globe and Mail and NP's, The Toronto Star being halfway between the sober and silly, the NP's clearly playing into all that falls within the anti-Woke, anti-globalist, climate-warming-is-a-leftist-conspiracy-theory mindset, which, come to think of it, pretty much encapsulates the MAGA crowd. So, yeah, I actually agree with PM Trudeau's categorization hence why I've been referring to MP Pierre Poilièvre as "Mini-Trump" or "Trump-Wannabe" or some variant of those for over a year.

On 21-Nov, a vote was held on Bill C-57, a revised version of the trade deal Canada has had with Ukraine since the Harper days; several "upgrades" were made, the changes also including verbiage that had been added in order to, within the current environmental/ecological framework, bring the agreement up to date with policies that weren't relevant when it was initially signed in 2016, taking effect in 2017.

Every single Conservative voted against the bill. 109 of them. It passed nonetheless, the Liberals, NDP, Bloc Québécois and the Greens all voting in favour, the final count being 205 "Yays" and 109 "Nays".

PM Trudeau claimed that "Right-wing MAGA politics caused Conservatives to turn their backs on Ukraine."

The reasoning he attached to that claim is that the CPC were mimicking the GOP opposition to "support for the war in Ukraine" that's now been widely adopted by Trump rightwingers.  

Poilievre explained his party's position by saying that that his MPs could not support a deal that "imposes a carbon tax on Ukraine."

On Thursday, 23-Nov, in a piece titled, "Revised Canada-Ukraine free-trade agreement does not contain carbon tax, Ukraine says", in answer to the reason provided by Poilièvre for the CPC's vote against the bill, G&M reported:

The Ukrainian embassy in Canada said on that same Thursday that "the revised trade deal contains no specific measures to decrease greenhouse gas emissions."

The “modernized CUFTA does not include any specific instruments on decreasing carbon footprint, including specific taxation instruments,” embassy spokesperson Marianna Kulava said in an e-mailed statement.

She also noted Ukraine is in the process of devising a plan to fight climate change as part of its campaign to seek admission to the European Union. “On the path toward EU membership, Ukraine is developing policies to address climate change in line with EU regulation,” Ms. Kulava said.

In Toronto, on 24-Nov, the Globe and Mail (G&M), under the headline, "Pressed on Ukraine trade deal, Pierre Poilievre tells tales", reported:

On Thursday in Toronto, Mr. Poilievre doubled down on his allegation, defending the vote his party took this week and insisting the new trade deal with Kyiv would impose a damaging carbon tax on Ukraine. “We voted against Justin Trudeau forcing a carbon tax into that pre-existing agreement,” he told reporters.

"The people of Ukraine are now going to – he expects them to rebuild from a war with a devastating and crippling tax on their energy. The Ukrainian farmers, he expects them to pay a carbon tax while they’re trying to feed their hungry people. This is cruel and, frankly, it is disgusting.”

However, all of that is pure BS. Poilièvre is, indeed, playing the MAGA narrative. 

The mention of "carbon" in the agreement only relates to "pricing". Nowhere is "carbon tax" mentioned, and treating "carbon tax" as if a synonym for "carbon pricing" provides a perfect exemplar of an all too common issue that provides a basis for much of the politics and  policies pushed for by conservative-leaning rightwingers: ignorance is far too involved in the arguments that give reasons to their vote, and the narrative that's exploited in thanks to a very narrowly-focused and wholly agenda-driven media that's been flooded with the kinds of funds that motivate all sorts of lies while overlooking all sorts of facts; the agreement states:

"Consistent with Article 13.24, the Parties shall cooperate bilaterally and in international forums to address matters of mutual interest, as appropriate, to … promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks," the agreement states.

The agreement also mentions measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks; trade experts and Ukraine's own authorities have since clearly specified that the mention of "carbon" within the agreement "does not bind Ukraine or Canada to a carbon tax."

Going back to Trudeau's claim: Personally, setting aside my own views on the Ukraine matter, I'm not comfortable with such a broad categorisation given that the issue there concerns mostly funding for the war mixed in with anti-Biden/Dems sentiments and tactics, per set tribal ways, and not a genuine desire to see, or devotion to, peace in any real sense, especially while, whether Dems or GOPs, defense stocks are making either equally rich.

Otherwise, opinions vary greatly, and there's GOP neocons like Lindsay Graham reminding all what a wonderful investment Ukrainian deaths are while Nikki Haley would have the US facing four existential threats`were she elected, the fourth being all those not seeing any value or reason to fight on the other three fronts.

As such, Trudeau's comment was met with derision among those concerned, many of these supporting Trump but only due to a lack of options and preferring anyone not in the false-liberalism, neolib-policy-loving, war-addicted, free-flowing-borders globalist camp which leaves Trump, though mostly because he knows exactly what to say...

The really disturbing aspect to that is the uncertainty, or mystery, that Trump provides, as most acknowledge the "faux" in his populism, Trump being an elitist at heart, but the animosity he's received from the "true" establishment folks leaves room for doubt that he'd do its bidding and not seek to destroy its present form, even if doing so only out of revenge.

Nonetheless, claiming that Poilièvre's CPC voted against Bill C-57 because they've turned their backs on Ukraine, a move that parallels MAGA politics, may be correct, in my opinion, but it's also wildly inaccurate.

It's the "carbon" that matters, and it's what makes it MAGA.

The right has put much effort on vilifying anything that falls under any notion of "Build Back Better" or that smells like a "Green New Deal", having falsely tied any of the current shortcomings and tensions that are reflected in today's energy costs to "Biden's radical Commie plan", having convinced many in the US, and the West, that having an oil-focused government back in the White House is all that's needed, ultimately, to reset the world in order and make America great again.

SImply, voicing anything that places a focus on "carbon" is taken to be indicative of crazy green thinking and planning that's destined to make the West's situation worse.

The one constant across those who voice anti-Trudeau statements and unequivocal support for Pierre Poilièvre, no matter which side of the border they're on: anything relating to climate warming, sustainable energy, and any facet of the Culture War that falls under the vague, dump-all "Woke" category.

Those who oppose the support offered to Ukraine if through weapons or measures meant to prolong the fighting cut across many groups, myself being a part of that albeit being far from someone that anyone would consider "rightwing" and not sharing a bulk of the views held by many who are also in this camp.

In a sense, this aspect has provided a plus given that, due to the limited number of outlets who weren't unquestionably pushing the establishment-approved narrative, those who'd gotten wise to what was really underway and who were seeking valid information and news that could actually be lined up with verifiable aspects offered by 'reality', all found themselves gravitating toward the same outlets regardless of which is/was their preferred party.

This gifted many with an opportunity to break out of their bubble, a.k.a. echo chambers, opening many to a reality that, if properly contextualized, allowed some to gain a better understanding of the nuances that revolve around many of the issues that have been turned into tribialities (trivial triblings (tribal doings)).

Those who officially function within government structures under a name that includes  "Progressive(s)" would be surprised by the amount of unity that's to be found on matters relating to the US' and the West's foreign policy positions and approaches; anti-imperialism/anti-neocolonialism stances aren't what's demonstrated by those whose label is meant to identify politics with core tenets leading anyone to assume de facto positions fervently opposed to anything that promotes such oppressive practices. And because these represent entities that are viewed as legitimate within the strict frameworks that easily shun anything considered "fringe", they are given the loudest voice among any of the progressive groups, those most true to a progressive spirit and goal being those who are silenced the most across the entire mainstream media, including by all indies with any hint of a possible allergy to repeated mentions of the word "socialism", with a chance of hives with "communism".

Those who genuinely care about a subject and not just a single event and how it can be used to serve their political wants rarely let their politics intrude on said subject, providing that it's not one with a focus on policies, or the few topics that have been successfully manipulated into tribe-defining central beliefs that are slowly forging a new tribe out of the standard two.

Climate warming, social benefits and health care, regulatory bodies, transgender issues and pronouns, like COVID, are all examples of individual topics that have all played a huge part in bringing about that change.

And notice that rightwing positions on climate change have shifted considerably, though not the outcome, as it's just their new angle to deny necessary changes, as this still doesn't facilitate the application of any solutions.

People like Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro now admit that climate change is real, though, in my opinion, these only do so due to the undeniability that now renders totally absurd the flat-out negations of yesterday in the face of observable changes and the imminent devastation these potentially herald. As such, should one wish to lend any validity to their arguments on the matter, it's best to admit that one had changed their mind—see, we righties do that, not leftists, they dare claim—and, establishing how reasonable they can be, while at it.

Shapiro leaned in on this shift, like most of his fossil-fuel loving reality-denying peers, though he did so a bit harder than all, adopting this new, unguarded acknowledgement that, certainly, indicate that, well—although, whether truly anthropogenic had yet been firmly proven—but, indeed, things are getting hotter!

Shapiro's extra-bit of motivation didn't come from an overwhelming sense of "good" that accompanied a lightness of heart and spirit, for honesty sets one free; he'd finally understood this, having long embraced social perspectives that carry clear political implications, these, in turn, demanding a course that's always been defined by "negation"  and relied on BS... and, yet, the best path was now deemed to be the same as the one espoused by leftist freaks, and here he was, being all rightwing AND he didn't have to spin those feelings that relate to a love of money over humans into facts that only ignorant and/or greedy, and duped, xenophobia-laden fools can possibly buy into... all must have seemed so fresh and strange and hopeful for Shapiro. This, honesty and politics coming together, was, surely, as titillating as one's first sexual experience? A major first for him—albeit one he experienced as he nears 70—seizing on the fact that lying wasn't necessary... well, on climate change, anyways. 

What?! Unless 70 or older, everyone "nears 70", no?

And, despite what non-rightwingers may think and whatever airs Shapiro gives off, the GOP-supporting media don't enjoy consistently being the only ones across the globe who've managed to decode and interpret the correct version of things, as this inevitably forces them to bravely face a flood of leftist-created "facts" armed with just a single study by some disparaged, right-leaning scientist who's so correct about everything they want him silenced and for nothing they write to be peer reviewed and published anywhere!

The changes we're witnessing may no longer be simply shrugged off as mere fiction by unrealistic, bleeding-heart, anti-establishment folks, but the actual urgency one should feel, as well as any solutions advanced by liberals, these can be attacked and invalidated, while predictions can be downplayed, and human strengths can be played up and given as a reason why climate change, albeit an 'actual thing', is no worse than anything else humans have faced throughout its history—humans are the most adaptive species, bar none; we've always adapted to major changes and will do so again.

That's their new line of defense/attack, which is now centred around goals and elements that factor into a narrative that extrapolates localised banalities and incompetence into wildly-complex conspiratorial webs and intricate schemes with a Blofeldian villain leading an evil organisation with its sights on the world, so it's a good thing that it's going at it armed with a god-awful marketing department that pitched "Own nothing; be happy," and decided to roll with it.

Stringing together all the pertinent events into a narrative takes us into a surreal land that's dizzyingly selective of all it sees as relevant as it overlooks—or never even gains awareness of—too much that would dispel their narrative in lieu of a more reasonable one that substantiate their claims without forging any deeper the insidious division that such a narrative relies on, hence playing into at least one side of the two-sided coin that always produces the same outcome no matter how many times it's flipped.

To the Ben Shapiros and those who've embraced that line of thinking, I offer: If that's what you honestly believe, then, why be so incredibly stupid about it? Because, what they present as our strength has always been driven by weakness: we never take the necessary steps we know need to be taken until reality has smacked us so hard that taking those steps is no longer an option, it's the only logical way forward, at which point, inevitably, devastating crises and wide-scale human misery is already upon us.

Shapiro's extra bit of motivation came from the fact that the right's new line allowed him to respin his spin about 'selling one's home by the seashore once climate-change-related rises in ocean levels becomes too obvious a problem' as a sensible view, though it's one that still relies on some group getting screwed and left holding valueless property, this being in line with the "hunt or be hunted" philosophy that's been callously adopted by rightists as the only acceptable world view. That is, until the US itself is the target.

Last Tuesday, 28-Nov, National Post told readers:

On Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilièvre added more heat, tabling a motion in the House of Commons asking MPs to vote in favour of telling the "unelected Senate" to hurry up and pass Bill C-234.

The legislation, introduced last year by Conservative MP Ben Lobb, would stop applying the carbon price to natural gas and propane used for farm activities for at least eight years.

Alberta, Canada's oil and gas heartland, has been fighting a fierce war against Ottawa, actively opposing any environmental measures it has attempted to take. Poilièvre jumped on the symbolic representation of this fight, equating the Trudeau government's efforts as 'big government' overreach and behaviour that's common of communist-leaning centralized powers, PM Trudeau attempting to squash free speech rights inside Alberta by wanting to impose any environmental plan at the federal level.

MAMMARIES: Making Acronymous MAGA Mega-Abbreviated Religiosity In Experienced Sexists  

Opining on “MAGA Mike” Johnson’s rise as Speaker of the House, which Feldman sees as a sure step toward bringing the Republican Party one step closer to a “full MAGA takeover,” Henry Olsen, a conservative senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, stated:

“The Republican Party has been a conservative party and a rural party and a Christian-right party to some extent for quite some time. Johnson’s elevation reflects that.”

According to William Galston, a former Domestic Policy Adviser in Clinton’s cabinet and a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, some of the MAGA movement’s defining characteristics actually predate Trump, having found a form though “the revolt against the old Republican establishment that began with the tea party in 2009.”

Linda Feldman, a staff writer with The Christian Science Monitor, tells us:

Mr. Trump tapped into that same rebellious, anti-establishment ethos on his way to the presidency. Recent Republican House speakers – before, during, and after Mr. Trump’s term – have all grappled with the party’s disparate factions, some calling it quits in exasperation or, as with the ideologically flexible Mr. McCarthy, losing the speakership at the hands of far-right colleagues. (Source)

 Feldman also makes the following claim:

So far, the new speaker seems to be playing it safe. He’s following the MAGA playbook, separating aid to Israel (which MAGA wants) from aid to Ukraine (which MAGA doesn’t want) in a $105 billion supplemental funding bill.

Rainbow Bridge Terrorist

This ties into the behaviour seen from Poilièvre as concerns the "Rainbow Bridge Terrorist" incident.

But I'll leave it up to you to make the link.

That's it for me, unfortunately. I see no point adding anymore to this piece, which will no longer be available in a few days...

Nothing I can do about it, apparently. 

.

Passing the Dutchie. Another definition that's probably much different than the one you had in mind?

A happy note to leave on...

.