February 2, 2026 • 54 mins
Everyone is talking about Canada leading the charge into the New World Order. Are we excited yet? Watch the glorious father of our nation deliver the goods at Davos, or not.
Join us on Patreon to get all our eps ad-free: https://www.patreon.com/plasticpills
Join us on Patreon to get all our eps ad-free: https://www.patreon.com/plasticpills
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
This is like when philosophy is in the news, we
have to report on it. When Canada is in the
international news, we have to report on it too. Because
our leader, a sixty year old, gray haired man, is
so based. They're calling him Karl Marx Karney. They're calling
him Marx Karney, leader of bricks, who said that, No,
(00:36):
it's now brick brickicks, brickicks. Canada's here, everyone, We're important.
David French is talking about us.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Everyone's talking about us amazingly.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
We thought he was just our run of the mill
austerity technocrat, but no, he He's up there. He's using
four syllable words, which is kind of a shock to
hear out of a nation national leader.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
It is fascinating to see the contrast between him and Trump,
and I think that's part of it. I feel like
it's very situational. I think people see Carney. I mean,
I do think the speech was good, which is what
we're going to talk about. Good from a technical point
of view or an oratorical perspective, it was good. But
I do feel like some of the aura. I mean,
(01:22):
people are calling this like the speech of the century,
you know, people are talking about this as the most
important speech they've.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Ever heard in the generation. It's crazy, Like people are
saying that this is that David that this is what who.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Said David French, the New York Times resident Iraq war apologists.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Yeah, he might have said that, like a bunch of people,
a bunch of like important quote unquote pundits have said.
You know, it's like the speech of the century. It's
like a speech for the for a generation, for a time.
It's like a historical moment. Like some people are saying
that this speech is like there's going to be like
a before the speech and then after the speech, like
(02:04):
like Christ, it's like before and after the Carney speech.
It's a new BC. It's like you know, after and it.
But really in this case, it's like before and after
like the world economic or the rules based international order, right,
because that's kind of what.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
The speech was about. But yeah, it's crazy, And I think.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
So when a bunch of people who are consistently diagnostically
wrong on issues all agree that something is great, then
this should be held up. We should think of this
as an IQ test.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Yeah, this is the reaction of the speech was kind
of over the top, and I do think it was good.
But I also wonder whether it's just almost situationally because
it's such a sharp contrast from Trump that that people
whenever anybody, when someone just displays some oratorical, traditional leadership
function in a way that is like a radical contrast,
(02:57):
it maybe gives it an extra oomph.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
But of course it did.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
It did seem to describe something that resonated with a
lot of people. So I'm talking, of course about the
Davos speech.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
If you if you're you know, not up to.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Speed, but the Davos World Economic Forum where all the
globalists to go and meet and discuss the world domination.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Yeah, exactly, from the site of the New World Order.
The new New World Order has been declared by none
of than are our guy, our guy a couple of minutes.
We should just let ezracline clean clean the come out
of his underwear changes changes boxers. We're a smart country,
We're a based country. It was actually I had to
(03:38):
pause because it wasn't something you can just read or
listen to with your phone out, because it did use
for words. Yeah, the Trump Trump's response was having a
stroke on stage.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
I heard grateful.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
It's like I heard heard Carnie he didn't sound so grateful,
and he's like, Canada's I think he said Canada's alive
only because of us.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Remember that Mark.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Isn't that crazy. He's like twenty years older than him.
But Mark Mark gives Dad vibes and that's probably why
he's so threatening.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, exactly, so we could run.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I mean it was kind of a high as you say,
as you put it, a high syllable speech. He starts
off by, you know, I think in the in the
fifth paragraph or fourth paragraph, he's talking about Thucydides, you
know so, and then he starts talking about that Czech
dissident vast love novel, I mean, the Thucidities thing.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Did you ever read Thucydides pills or no?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Was it the Melian Dialogue?
Speaker 3 (04:42):
I think so, it's it's it's the one that also
ir people love talking about because.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
They want and the week except what they must. Yeah, yeah, exactly,
it's always that. That's the only thing from Thucidities I
even know.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yeah, and that's exactly the part that Carney quoted. And uh, of.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Course and uh and a Soviet Oh, I guess he's
not a Soviet? Was check?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
It wasn't part of the Soviet Union. It was part
of the Eastern Bloc. You know those other countries that
were like aligned and had.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
They had a socialist socialist quote unquote government, Yeah, which.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Were basically Soviet puppets, but they were like nominally like
not part of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Why is it all the best anecdotes and stories and
parables about the about what ideology does and is they
all come out of the last days of the Soviet Union,
the Eastern Bloc. Yeah, before we analyzed the rhetoric of
the speech, which is all I'm really capable of doing,
Mark Karney. By giving this speech, he also demonstrates that
(05:44):
he doesn't feel like he's personally in that much danger. Now,
isn't that a lot of faith to put in the
stroke wridden, decaying mind of Donald Trump? Because if he
decided my last act, my last act is Supreme Emperor,
is going to be to invade Canada and take it
as the fifty first state. There's not a lot that
(06:04):
we could do to stop it, and it'd probably be
over in you know, four days. Maybe we don't have
automatic weapons, we don't have nukes. For years we've been bragging,
ha ha, we don't have school shootings. But now now
it's coming back to bite us in the ass. We
don't have automatic weapons. Our army is smaller than ice. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
One thing that's also interesting about this, like Carnie in Canada,
how much he how popular he is. I mean, he
was getting pretty popular even before this speech.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
But it was interesting.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
I was at a friend's place playing magic the gathering,
and I have one friend there who is I would say,
like very much in every man Canadian, like white white guy,
you know who's I wouldn't say particularly partisan, but for
a long time he was all in on Poliev, who
is the Conservative leader. He was all in on Pierre
Paul But he's the type of guy who's not really ideological.
(07:04):
You know, he's just kind of like looking at his
pocketbooks and he's like, this is pissing me off. Right,
So he was pissed off at Trudeau and like housing,
you know, he's at the age where he's like, look,
he was trying to buy a house and he was frustrated,
and all the stuff that Pauliev talked about about housing
policy resonated with him and he was like all in.
And it's just interesting how now and even when Carney
came into the picture, he was like, Okay, well maybe
(07:26):
this is gonna be a tougher decision.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
And then now he's like all about Carney. He like
loves Carney.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
He was like, this is exactly the leader we needed
for the time, and like he's totally shifted.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
So he wasn't the Poliev fan like, no, I just
want to be able to shovel my driveway without seeing
an Indian No exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
I mean, I think that that is one of the things,
in my opinion, that marks Canadian politics as being quite
distinct from American politics. We have a lot more swing
voters in the sense of there's a lot of people
in the suburbs of Toronto and other suburban areas that
kind of shift depending on where the wind is blowing.
And a lot of those suburbs are also immigrant communities too,
(08:02):
like a lot of the Conservative Party, for them to
be successful, they need to win over immigrants. So that
just kind of makes it so that the kind of
conservative politics that can exist here is limited in its
kind of identitarian craziness. I just think it's not possible
for it to go for it to win and go
that far on the identitarian craziness. I just think it
couldn't It couldn't win.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
It couldn't win.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Yeah, as desperate as they are to copy American conservatism,
the race as a wedge issue kind of doesn't work.
You have to find the other wedge issues.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
It's kind of it's just not a good strategy accept
in Quebec.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
That there works.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Except in Quebec. They're a special case. Yeah they are.
They are a special case.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
But they're also weird because their nativism is like super
left wing most of it, Like like.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
What this I would want to see? Because if America invaded,
the Albertans would put out American flags hanging out their
window and cheer the tanks as they rolled through. Everyone else, Like,
we wouldn't be happy with it by any means, but
we kind of have to accept it because there's nothing
that we could do except for Quebec. Quebec would not
(09:08):
put up with that shit, and Quebec you'd have like
you'd be finding the bodies of politicians and car trunks.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
When the US might even be like we don't want
to deal with these people, let's just let them have
their own country.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Yeah, yeah, but this is a sign that Carney does
not really believe what he said, because if you believed
that there is nothing holding the rules based international order intact,
then why wouldn't Trump invade our country and take it over.
Like we don't have anything, we don't have automatic weapons.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Yeah, I mean, you know, even if we did have weapons,
we probably still wouldn't have much of a chance. I mean, yeah,
I think at this day and age, modern warfare is
all about the kind of technology, and the US has
crazy spooky military technology that can do fucking anything. So
I don't really you know, I don't think that it's
like us having guns, us being our I don't really
know that that would make much much of a difference.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, after they invade, after the invasion's over, they'll just
like send out a malware. So if you have Mark
Carney's speech in your browser history, then they'll just wait
till you're talking on your phone and blow up your head.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
So I guess to the content of the speech, I mean,
what did you take pills as a less you know,
as a less political theory oriented person, what did I'm curious,
what would what did you take to be the main
message or the thesis of the speech. What do you
think he was trying to get across?
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Oh, I would like to say when we planned to
cover this, we had someone who knew better what they
were talking about, but they weren't able to make it. Now. Admittedly,
the only way that I can evaluate this speech is aesthetically,
because I don't know anything about ir or international trade
(10:56):
or even what his country exports. So let's get the
caveat out of the way. But first point, Libitdally. We
crave a leader, qua father and this, this, only this
can explain why so many Americans reacted to this, just
totally libitdinally horny for a father figure. Because they are
(11:20):
being run right now by drunk uncle. They need to
go from drunk uncle back to dad, who just says
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. That's all they want
to hear. And this also is what Canadians wanted to
hear after having just it for so long, because Justin,
Justin could have never pulled off this speech. He doesn't
(11:41):
have the tambour, not the right tamber.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Oh yeah, I was thinking about that when I was
watching it as well. I was like, God, could you
imagine him saying this?
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Carney delivered it sounding and seeming intelligent, whereas if Justin
tried just's Justin's like the older cousin who's trying to
be cool, is more of his vibe, whereas Carney is
like smart dat or even just sober dad. Maybe that's what.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Everyone wants exactly exactly. And I think I also feel
that when I was watching the speech, I felt that, well,
there were platitudes in a sense, of course.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
There always are in these kinds of speeches.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
It struck me that there was actually quite a lot
of substance, right, whether you agree or disagree with the substance,
there was real substance in this speech. There was like
a real claim. It wasn't just like we're stronger when
we worked together where whatever, like where this or that?
Like he was making a real claim. It felt like,
which is I think why it resonated.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
So much with people. Yeah, with other world later.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Yeah, that's all that Justin was able to do.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
That Justin was full of platitudes.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Diversity is strength, but our strength is.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Diversity exactly exactly.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
And I but to your other point, no, I it's
interesting that you found this to be substantial because I
was trying to find what the substance was, and it's
quite elusive. There's something else though about how he delivers this.
Maybe this is just how speeches are written now, but
(13:14):
it sounds like it was written trying to get clips,
and the clips are ultimately what we saw on like
on Twitter or whatever you're on. Because these these end
speech or the end of the lines. Maybe I'll insert
an example.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Yeah, and we are no longer just relying on the
strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
These end lines sound like they're made to be clipped.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Argue the middle powers must act together because if we're
not at the table, we're on the menu.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Yeah, for sure, there was a lot. There was a
lot of that.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
I feel like, I thought, like the breathless enthusiasm, like
trying to get on their knees to get just a
dribble of come on their face. It's just saying like
what's obviously true already, and that people are just so
shocked that someone can say something that's obviously true.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Hedgemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to
hedge against uncertainty. They'll buy insurance, increase options in order
to rebuild sovereignty, sovereignty that was once grounded in rules
but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
But that point that you just said, though, pills that
people you know were creaming themselves because this guy was
just saying something that was obviously true. But that's important.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And I think it's not just someone saying something true,
or it's a politician at Davos. The world economic order
is saying something that's true, right, And I think that
that's that's what surprises people. I mean, I think I
saw Glenn Greenwald, right, no fan of the globalist rules
based international order, whatever that means, he was kind of
(15:08):
shocked by the honesty, right, And that's kind of what
I heard. A lot of people, I would say, who
are more have left wing, like broadly leftist intuitions about
the world order. They were more like, Wow, he's just
saying what we've been saying for decades, like, and he
just came out and said it, right. And I think
maybe this quote exemplifies it. I think this is probably
(15:29):
like the quote that was clipped the most.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
He says, uh, for decades, countries like Canada prospered under
what we call the rules based international order. We joined
its institutions, we praised its principles, We benefited from its predictability,
and because of that we could pursue values based foreign
policies under its protection. We knew the story of the
international rules based order was partially false, that the strongest
(15:56):
would exempt themselves when convenient that trade, the rules were
enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with
varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or
the victim.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
This fiction was.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods,
open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and
support for frameworks for resolving disputes. So we placed the
sign in the window, We participated in the rituals, and
(16:33):
we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We
are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
So that's I think the core because Canada and other
countries are so dependent, are so integrated with the US economy,
and now that they have a leader that's kind of
using that integration to as a weapon that this is
kind of creating an unacceptable situation. He's actually just noticing
the thing. He's admitting basically that Canada knew this was
kind of bullshit. Although he did say partial reality, right,
(17:12):
he didn't say or he said partial fiction.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
He didn't say a full fiction.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah he did. He said partial fiction and never never
elaborated on the part of it that was true. This
is some mealy mouthed metaphysics from Mark Karney exactly. But
I do want to know. I do want to ask
him can ken the rules based order? Is this something
that is true or false? It's like the old old
(17:36):
metaphysical Greek question. If a circle has a hole in it,
it's no longer a circle. It doesn't matter how small
the hole is. There's a hole in the circle, it's
no longer a circle. If the international rules based Order
is partially false, that just renders it false.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
No, he's admitting that Canada benefited. That did it because
they knew it was in their interest, not because they
actually believe that the rules based international Order was you know,
a thing, And yeah, I don't know, is there what
was your feeling about that?
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Huh, Well, thanks for asking, but I need to say again,
if you want, if you want stock picks on this speech,
I'm the worst person to ask. And I feel like
my lack of knowledge is particularly significant here because we
don't know who the intended audience for the speech is, Like,
(18:28):
who could it be In an election year? It would
be Canadian voters because the only thing we vote based
on is not being America. So if he's saying, hey,
we're not America, then yeah, we then he could be
speaking to us. It's not an election yere though, So
is he speaking to the Americans? Is he speaking to
the American press press or the people that can nudge
Trump around saying, you know, cut out all this tariff
(18:51):
bullshit because you're messing with the money. And if you
mess with the money, we're going to go to China.
So I guess his leverage kind of is, hey, you're
a up, let's all go buy Chinese evs instead of Tesla?
Is that the strategy here? Because beyond that, I mean,
I guess I kind of disagree with you and everyone
else who says is a substantial or consequential speech because
(19:16):
all he all he said concretely is hey, we can
make deals with whoever we want. Which already was true
before that, and beyond that, he's saying, Hey, we live
in a simulation, and everyone in without their head in
the sound already knows that too. So I know, like personally,
(19:36):
I know that I'm missing the dog whistle register, and
I don't know like who he's actually talking to through
these words. But it is moderately interesting that there's like
a metaphysics to this in which the Breton Woods system
exists because people have agreed to believe in it, not
because they believe in it, and admitting that you don't
(19:58):
believe in it is a big deal. But also to that,
I mean, big whoop. Everyone knows that money exists because
we have agreed to believe in it, not because we
actually believe in it. But I do want to know.
I do want to know who the WII is, the
we that no longer believe, the we who chose to
believe and no longer do, because that's not us.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, yeah, he's obviously talking about the leadership.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
This guy, this fucking guy, he's an international banker with
three passports. Is that the weave?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
I mean, he definitely is.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Uh, you know, if you were to look up like
who's a globalist in the dictionary.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
I feel like Mark Karney would be, like, right there.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
He was the central banker for two central banks, worked
at Goldman Sachs in international finance. Like, he's a PhD
in economics. He used to have citizenship from three countries,
although he renounced Ireland and the UK when he became
Prime minister. Like he is globalist, you know.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Yeah, and why Ireland is that like a tax haven thing.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
I don't know why he had Irish citizenship, but obviously
he needed a UK citizen to be the leader of
the Bank of England.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Yeah, he's pretty he's pretty high flying for a Northwest
Territories boy. This is not a typical coastal elite.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Yeah, I know, amazingly he's a prairie boy. But then
I guess, I guess.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
The other thing worth talking about is like how he
opens the speech with this anecdote from this Czech dissident.
It's from an essay called the Power of the Powerlessness,
which was from nineteen seventy eights. This would have been
when Czechoslovakia, which at the time was one country, right
not split up when it like they were under communist rule.
Part of the Eastern Bloc, and he makes this point
(21:39):
about how fictional orders are sustained through lies. And he
talks about this example of the green grocer, which is
in Voslov's or Hovel's essay, where the green grocer every
morning would put up this sign, you know, workers of
the world unite. And this is how Carne puts it.
He says he doesn't believe it, no one does, but
(22:01):
he places a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance,
to get along. And because every shop keeper on every
street does the same, the system persists not through violence alone,
but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they
privately know to be false. And that's what Hovell called
living within a lie. And that same thing Hobvell claimed
(22:27):
is what makes those kinds of systems fragile. Is if
they are predicated on such a strong lie, then as
soon as people start to take their signs down, as
he's talking about it, then the whole system can collapse
quite quickly. And this is something that I feel like
Slowo has talked about quite a bit. I Rememberjack used
(22:47):
to make this kind of joke point about how if
there was like a communist meeting, and then someone speaks
out against the regime in the meeting, and then someone
else gets up and says, how dare you speak against?
You know, this leadership and this structure. Was like that
second guy would get killed first because he's exposing that
(23:09):
like that, like we're not allowed to dissent.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Right, Defending the lie is a way of admitting the
lie exists, which.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Is exactly whereas the other guy's just being and like
nominally in these you know, people's republics, they're supposed to
be democratic, you're supposed to nominally, right, they pretend that
you're allowed to have opinions.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
So it's like the first person would obviously get.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
In trouble because they're speaking against the regime, but the
second one, who's exposing the fact that this is all
bullshit by saying how dare you speak out against would
be in more trouble.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Is kind of Geck's point.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I took the point that Carne would, now it's interesting
to apply this to international relations, right, because obviously this
is talking about how totalitarian regimes function. So his point here,
I guess, is that countries, even though they knew that
the rules based international order was kind of bullshit that
(24:03):
it was. Really we were doing things to benefit from
the US hegemony, and if we pretend that we agree
with everything, then we're going to benefit and we won't
get in trouble.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
So we'll just go ahead.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
And now that's not working anymore. But you know, I
don't know if it's like a perfect one to one match.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Yeah, you got to imagine it's probably like it's loaded
or some sort of faux pas. To compare the current
global order and it's sort of decaying or decadent institutions
to the late socialism, late socialism in the USSR, in
the Eastern Bloc right, they're both decadent. They're both failed
(24:42):
attempts that relied on a story instead of reality. Now
there was something I was interested in here structurally, and
that is the recursion. Because all of the praise about
the speech being delivered was how it's being honest, But
the speech itself is also saying we're taking the sign
(25:03):
out of the window. We're finally going to be honest,
and what's the brutal honesty that we're going to hit
the world with. Oh, well, the United States is exempting
itself whatever it feels like, it's just like that's not
the hardest, deepest truth if you if you live in
El Salvador or Honduras or Guatemala or Chile.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah, yeah, totally.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
But I guess the same thing would probably apply it
to talitarian regimes though, too, right, like they would like
everyone kind of knows, don't you think. So it's like
it's like not really a and maybe this is really
epistemology comes in because it's like.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
People, Oh, I don't know, I don't know about the
word totalitarian.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Okay, sure, whatever we want to talk about.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Sneak your horseshoe theory in here. The hypernormalization of it.
You need, you need to pretend like there's power when
they're isn't actual power anymore. Like you're not gonna die
for not having the sign in your window the way
you would be if you criticize the the Nazi government
in nineteen forty. So I don't That's why I don't
like totalitarian, because it's just meant to say communism.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And well, that guy might get in trouble though for
taking the sign down, like if he's the only one,
like he might get in shit.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
He's probably not gonna die, but he'd probably get in trouble.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I think though, the point of this kind of ideology
where everyone pretends that the thing is still going on,
happens when the thing isn't going on anymore. So you
pretend that the power exists, You pretend that Workers of
the World unit is still a truth after it's no
longer a truth. If the government were totalitarian, they would
just kill you for right.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Disagree, Right, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
You have to save face in front of the other.
That's when you pretend, no, this is actually a democracy
and it's actually what everybody wants. So this applies to
Mark Harney situation here that we don't we don't want
to pretend that this is true anymore.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Right right now?
Speaker 1 (27:09):
Of course, I like, I love I love when stuff
like this happens because it shows the simulation.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
I was curious about that.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Yeah, this is a situation that just perfectly fits my sociology,
both both denying the obvious simulation and then the orotund
masturbatory rhetoric about how brave it.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
Is to.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Say something's false that everybody already knows it's false. This
is perfect. So what does it reveal? What does it reveal?
In terms of metaphysics. Now, it's already true that social
systems must be simulations, which is to believe that there
is a code or an organizing principle that runs the thing,
(27:57):
and it has to be believed in. That matters way
more than if it's true. If it's believed in, you
can create a social system around it. Like God doesn't exist,
but you can create extremely complex hierarchies, social systems of
investment based on belief in God. Also an economy. You
(28:19):
cannot get people to believe in an economy unless they
believe that there is some secret to value, that value
exists somewhere, and belief here just means that you do
the things that are required. So he says sign in
the window. Like we can criticize money or the or
fiat currency. The conspiracy theorists love going after fiat currency.
(28:43):
This is based on nothing. Even if you know that
money's based on nothing. When you go to the store,
you use it. It just matters what you do, what
you do. You can criticize anything you want in your
private time, but as long as when you go out
then you use the thing, then you're propagating the system.
(29:04):
You know, back in the day, if you don't believe
in God, then that's fine as long as you're tithing
to the church properly, and they're keeping records. So if
you don't tithe properly, the consequences are that you're I
don't know, I don't know what they would do, exclude
you from finance, exclude you from the social world in
(29:24):
some way, which is a worse punishment. So it doesn't
matter whether you believe in God in your head. It
matters that you demonstrate believe in God by giving your tithe.
And that's what I took out of this. But it
doesn't mean that Trump destroyed it, right. This is what
I disagree with every anti Trumper in the New York
(29:44):
Times opinion section, which is really funny about this because
that's the thing that binds them together. But the Trump
exposing that it no longer exists anymore means that it
died at some point in the past. And this is
to me the matter of the bait. Like Warhol signals
the end of art. But Warhol himself didn't kill Art.
(30:05):
He was just the one who exposed it for.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
What I noticed it.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, Trump is the signal that the thing never held
true in the first place, but he's not the guy
who killed it. And funnily enough, this proves Francis Fukiyama
the the most wrong philosopher.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Is that's interesting just to back to go back to
like the novel example, though, are you saying that it
was never true in the sense because the lie, right,
the workers of the world unite in that is that
like this regime is really about workers, right, And the
lie or the truth is that it's not really it's
actually about this like party having power, Like it's not
(30:44):
really about democracy and workers, right, it's about So that's
the lie that gets exposed. That was that was already
a lie, right, it was already not true.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Now this is where if you're gonna go with my theory,
you can't really use the word lie and truth. That's
why I use the word secret, because the secret you
can believe in it without actually knowing whether it's true
or false. If you believe in the true in the rules,
(31:15):
you make the rules true. Yeah, So it doesn't matter
whether it's true or not. It just matters whether people
believe in it. Any social system is like this. Any
game is like this too, Like there are no objective
rules for chess there's only agreed upon rules for chess.
The power of the cult leader is not that he
(31:36):
has connection to the other world. It's that his followers
believe that he has connection to the other world. That's
what makes a cult is their belief in his power,
which gives him power. So workers of the World unite.
It's neither true nor false. But the power of workers
of the World unite is that people believe in it.
(31:59):
If people people don't believe in it, then it's not real.
So it's not lie versus truth because that could be true, right,
it could be true workers over the world. You know,
you have nothing to lose with your change if everyone
believed in it. The problem is that they did.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
Yeah, yeah, And that's actually something I wish Eric was here,
but he didn't show up today.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Is uh.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
I was curious about the ways in which we think that.
You know, maybe this moves things more towards the Hovel
or the kind of thing about how ideology functions. But
you know, to what extent does Hovel's analysis apply to
a liberal democracy?
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Right?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I mean, there's definitely lies, there's definitely ideology, but it
almost seems like a reversal in a liberal democratic context
where it's almost like like you can call out the
untruth as much as you want, but the thing still
functions somehow, Like it's it's kind of weird. It's like
(32:59):
it's like it's like a bizarre I'm trying to map
this out in my head because I don't quite have
it straight. But it's like because in this example of
these communist regimes, everyone is not allowed to say the
thing that's not true, and everyone's afraid to say the
thing that's not true that and it's a threat saying
(33:22):
the thing that's not true allowed could be a threat
to the regime, Whereas in liberal democracies it's almost like
everyone is saying the thing that is not true, but
there's a bunch of people who are also saying things
critiques that are also untrue critiques, and it's almost like
they're flooded. It's flooded with discourse. And maybe it's because
it's so flooded it has no effect or something.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
It's well, it matters who said it is. Anyone who's
anyone who knows anything has said that for a long
time that the United States can break the Geneva Convention
without consequence whenever it feels like when it feels like
opening a prison in Iraq, you know, yeah, but it matters.
This is why everyone's teary eyed about it is because
(34:05):
a leader actually said it. Yeah, the leaders are supposed
to believe for us, because none of us are capable
of believing in something so absurd.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Yeah, But that's what makes the pundits of the New
York Times so teary eyed is because one of the
actual Haparatics, one of the actual members of the party,
one of the inner circle of the globalist world order. Yeah,
that they don't even believe it. And that's the other
(34:37):
thing I about saying we like, we we went along
with this. We all pretended, but you're one of the guys,
like your office at least you represent not just the
nation but the entire system.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Well, he was also giving the speech at the World
Economic Forum.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
So the we is the people in the room too.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
He's like looking at the other leaders, He's looking at
the other people in the room who are part of it.
I feel like he's kind of trying to signal to
everyone there like, yeah, we went along with it for
a while, but we but it's bullshit, or like at
least it's and it's not working for us anymore. It's
not to our benefit anymore. We should try to do
something different. And what that different thing is is also
a bit unclear.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
But well, he came home and cut a whole bunch
of government jobs, so something like that. Well, and then also,
did you know that we have a lower corporate tax
rate in the United States. That's insane.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
That's recent. Eh.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
I don't know if the low I don't know how
much he lowered it by, but that's one thing he
did last year. So yeah, he's a he and he's
cutting cutting government spending in order to make that happen.
He's in austerity tecto crap.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
Or what they call a red Tory, you know, a
kind of a still liberal but technically kind of a
Tory conservative kind of guy.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Globalization.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
I remember when I was in high school, I had
an international business professor and he I could tell he
was so like, uh, left wing, and it was good,
it was cool, like it's that's not a bad thing.
But it would I could see it would like slip
into his lessons, Like he would just start ranting about
the World Trade Organization and like and the IMF giving
you know, poor countries really shitty deals. I mean, that's
(36:13):
what happened to Venezuela at one point, right, I think
they got like a like a crazy like loan package
from the International Monetary Fund that all those deals always said,
you have to, you know, privatize everything if you want
to get this money from US, which would kind of
dictate a certain kind of ideological or economic ideological framework,
(36:35):
it would kind of impose it on countries if they
wanted loans.
Speaker 1 (36:40):
Well, this, I think this has to be a sort
of litmus test to see what kind of idiot you are,
because he basically lists a bunch of problems of capitalism,
predatory you know, predatory loans, getting mining rights or oil
rights or mineral rights or land rights in third world
kind of trees to do whatever you want there. And
(37:03):
he's saying, well, this is unfair the way that the
United States has implemented it. But oh wait, now we
need a chance for our middle our middle power, That's
what I guess he calls us. We need our middle
power companies the chance to dictate the terms of the
global order, and we're going to go to China if
America doesn't give our companies a good deal. So yeah,
(37:24):
this is he speaks to the unfairnesses in the global system,
but then just says, well, now we're gonna try somehow.
Nothing's clear about this, but we're gonna try somehow working
together as a block. Rather than being deferential to American
corporate interests, We're gonna, I don't know, seek out Norwegian
(37:48):
interest I don't I don't have any clue this is.
This is actually a big question, like what does he
actually want here? Who is this good for? Because he's
a fucking international banker. It's not gonna it's not for
us that he's doing this.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
Or we should do stuff.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
We should do more stuff together, like Canada and Europe
should be more interconnected, should should make more deals like
that cuts the US out or something.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
It's not a declaration of war on our largest trading partner,
but it's not clear what it is. He's just saying,
I'm a brave person. Is the whole is the signal
or this whole speech? We're brave people.
Speaker 4 (38:24):
And because every shop keeper on every street does the same.
The system persists not through violence alone, but through the
participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to
be false. Pavel called this living within a lie. The
system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's
(38:46):
willingness to perform as if it were true.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
When he says that one line, he says something like,
it's not that the system's true. It works because everyone
acts like it's true. That's not That doesn't apply to
late socialism and the current hegemonic American world order. That
is just that's how human, how human systems, all of
(39:11):
them work.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
We don't.
Speaker 1 (39:12):
Language is not true. Language works because people believe that
it can convey or represent truths.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
I mean, I would say that that's he was like
just saying something that people were shocked a leader would
say out loud. But then when it comes to the
substance of what he's saying, especially when it comes to
the upshot or the recommendation, it's like, yeah, America, where
we're kind of at the at the whims of you know,
(39:42):
this hedgemon America, but you know, and.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
It made sense.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
We were getting a pretty good deal out of it,
and now we're not getting a good deal. It's funny
because from Trump's perspective, I feel like he says all
the time, He's like, well, They've just gotten way too
sweet of a deal from us in the past, and
now it's not worth it for us anymore.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
He was also widely.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Quoted and I wonder what you thought about this. He said,
Nostalgia is not a strategy right for the old order?
Do you did you do you remember that it's another banger.
It doesn't mean anything, but yeah, it's a banger.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
It's a banger, but it doesn't mean anything exactly.
Speaker 4 (40:19):
It's we are taking a sign out of the window.
We know the old order is not coming back. We
shouldn't warn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we
believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger,
more just. This is the task of the middle powers,
(40:40):
the countries that have the most to lose from a
world of fortresses and a most to gain from genuine cooperation.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
That's another thing where like, okay, obviously the global international
order is you know, fake for all these reasons we've
been talking about, and I think Carney's right to point
out the way it's been used on weaker countries to
the benefit of the stronger, and especially to the benefit
of the United States and.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
To our benefit. Our mining companies. Our mining companies owned
like all of Central America.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Yep, they had lots of gold company. Canadian gold companies
own a bunch of mines all over the world.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
Yeah. So when he says we're gonna build a more
just system, like, what does what does justice mean coming
from a banker that we're going to relinquish our mining
rights in Central America, South America and Africa? No, of
course not. So what does he say? I guess he's
calling for solidarity among the middle powers to continue to
(41:37):
exploit the weaker country. It has to be that, right.
Mining companies are like like forty percent of the TSX.
If he were to say, okay, we're we're gonna be
a just country from now on, that would be it
would be suicide, be suicide for our economy.
Speaker 3 (41:55):
But uh and then but then when he says it's
not coming back, Uh uh, I guess I feel like
it could though, Like if Trump leaves office and just
some new guy like no normal president gets elected.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
I feel like it could just come back. I don't know,
Like why.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
Not, Well, no, I don't. This is just a material
fact that the peak, the peak of the American economy
relative to the rest of the world was in like
that it ten seventies or something that's like that, that's true,
coming back.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
That's true, that's true.
Speaker 3 (42:30):
And I guess even and Carney's response to me it
would probably be like, but now it's just been exposed
as a fragile situation. Next then next JD. Vans will
be elected and it'll be back to the old ways,
so you can't rely on it anymore. Like there's no
all these norms that American presidents were following when it
came to like international trade strategy, trade policy have been
(42:50):
broken so that there's no more norms, so we can't
rely on any anymore. So it is over in that sense.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
I guess.
Speaker 1 (42:56):
Well, now we have the other metaphysical question. If we
show that the simulation is false, which any normal person
has known for a long time, but now that Carney
is admitting it, this is a signal, a worse signal
for the simulation. Now does the simulation give way to
reality TM or does it give way to another simulation?
(43:21):
Because you can see you can see that Karney does
not believe that the system is over, because if it were,
then he would not have given this speech, because if
he believed that the United States can do whatever it wants,
(43:43):
then he should be worried now about being black bagged.
They could send Jaysock into his house at Ottawa and
kidnap him. That's something that they could do. They could
annex our country. It wouldn't be that much of a problem.
And I mean in terms of reality. You know, if
you ran this as a computer simulation, we wouldn't we
(44:03):
wouldn't have a chance. He wouldn't have a chance. But
the fact that he dares to say this proves that
he doesn't think that the simulation is collapsed, that we're
not on the brink of Trump actually doing whatever he wants.
So there is still there remains a magical force that
(44:25):
that is holding Trump and America in its decayed decadence state.
It's still holding them back, so they don't So we
are not in reality.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
Well there is no reality?
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Oh really that's your position?
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Now, Well, I mean, there is some reality, but I'm
just saying that there's no there's not going to be
like a yeah, there's going to be some other spontaneous
whether spontaneous or manipulated, like ideologically mediated, you know, form
of agreement in the global order.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
Right, It's just.
Speaker 3 (45:02):
You know, it's always going to be some fictional aspects
of it, I guess, I feel.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
And that's really what he's going for, Like, if this
means anything, he's calling for solidarity, not obviously worker solidarity,
but solidarity among the middle countries to act as a
block and to not capitulate to the United States, which
means it's not really clear what it means, trading a
little bit more with China. I guess group deals with China,
(45:29):
and Canada's going to go with Europe.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
And we are also geogray geographically.
Speaker 3 (45:33):
I mean, we're right by the States. It's just crazy
not to like we're we're kind of fucked in that sense.
It's like we're right beside it, and that was like
part of our advantage. But now it's it's like, yeah,
what are we going to do?
Speaker 1 (45:45):
So, yeah, this is the thing, This is the key
to the whole thing. And I don't know what it
is because I have I'm ignorant to the way this
stuff works. But Mark Kearney is trying to get someone
to do something. Who is that someone and what is
that thing? Like Europeans probably China, who knows.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
I agree it was not clear what those things are.
I would say, you trade, yeah, I mean he made
an agreement to try to trade with China. I think
he wants to diversify, but ultimately, like what is that
really gonna do? And in this case, it seems like
maybe it's going to piss off Trump.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
The Trump, He's got his hands full right now. I mean,
it's it's what a disaster.
Speaker 3 (46:24):
I mean, I know we're not here to talk about it,
but like, holy shit, what a disaster in Minneapolis, And
like it's just what a shithole country America is becoming.
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Holy crap.
Speaker 1 (46:36):
Another simulation is cops.
Speaker 2 (46:40):
Yeah, ice, ice officers, ice, ice, Gestapo.
Speaker 1 (46:43):
Well, the simulation gives way of the Gestapo, and then
you're left wondering, Okay, what's a real cop. It's just
a it's just an ice officer with a different badge.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 1 (46:55):
I have another theory to add to the pile, which
actually I think it makes sense. Maybe this is all
just a theater, a stage production on behalf of Mark
Carney to speak to his other peers, the big money
guys like Jamie Diamond, Jamie Diamond leveled dudes, because well,
(47:16):
Jamie Diamond and Trump now they're having a tiff. But
Jamie Diamond supposedly the first time the tariffs went around,
like got on the horn and said, Bro, you're fucking
with the money. You don't want to go this way.
So maybe if there's anyone like that left, maybe Mark
Carney is signaling to them like, hey, I'm gonna lead,
(47:37):
I'm gonna lead an exodus with all these people unless
you get this guy back in line. That could be
another potential audience for who's listening to this threat. Definite,
then it would just be all it's a simulation of
a simulation saying we're gonna pull out of this unless
you bring it back.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
Yeah, I think that's definitely a strong possibility. Like I'm
sure he did that to try to send a message,
maybe as a bargaining chip, but I don't know if
it's gonna work. I mean, as far as I've seen,
I feel like Trump kind of liked Carney. Well, he
respects him because he's a money guy, and Trump is
just like anyone who deals with money is like worth listening.
I mean, it's I was gonna say before when we
(48:15):
were talking about Trudeau, Like I remember when I was
watching the Carney speech. I had this sort of insight
that it makes so much sense that Trudeau was just
a school teacher. Like the way that he talks like
it's just so like it feels like he's such a
school teacher, like just some primary school or middle school teacher.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
And it's like and then here's a real like.
Speaker 1 (48:39):
You could say he speaks condescendingly, but it's like he
likes you, yes, while being condescending, like.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
A teacher, Yes, exact a teacher.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
A teachers who's dumbing it down. But they're also kind
of dumb, so they're not you know, they're talking to
you like they like you while not really respecting your intelligence,
but also not being intelli legit. We've solved it exactly.
Speaker 2 (49:02):
He talked to the public like their children a little bit.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
Yes, it's not lying, it's a it's not lying. It's
a dumb person dumbing it down for your sake because
he wants to seem like he likes you.
Speaker 3 (49:16):
No, No, he was like a progressive, a hyper progressive
teacher who's just like you know, the tone of his voice.
It makes so much sense. And and like I don't
even remember why I brought that up, but like just
seeing the way that Carney talks about things. Yeah, like
it's such a it's such a contrast to Trudeau. Oh no,
that's and that's also why Trump didn't respect Trudeau. Also,
(49:37):
He's like he could tell us like this guy's just
a fucking teacher.
Speaker 1 (49:39):
Like yeah, yeah. It's funny that we're now, like what
do you call it upholding Denmark's claims to Greenland, because
it was back this is a distant memory. Back in
the early two thousands, it made national news that Canada
(49:59):
and Denmark were like disputing some random island in the Arctic,
like who actually owned it? And this was this was
like a big deal before anyone was threatening just to
take the entire island. Now it was this tiny little
island and Denmark landed some troops on it, and then
Canada landed some troops on it.
Speaker 2 (50:20):
It's funny that there.
Speaker 3 (50:21):
Do you know that In two thousand and three, I
think there was a like a Canadian TV movie that
was like kind of a sci fi alternate universe where
Canada becomes part of the States.
Speaker 2 (50:34):
It's called H two O.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
Because back then the big conspiracy was that the Americans
are going to run out of fresh water, and Canada
has like the second or third most freshwater in the world,
and that America is going to just annex Canada to
take our fresh water.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
Wow, we're only second in that. I would have put
us first.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
Maybe we're first. Let's fact check that.
Speaker 1 (50:59):
Brazil Russia has more. Brazil has the most.
Speaker 2 (51:02):
Oh Brazil. Okay, you looked at up.
Speaker 3 (51:05):
Interesting, Yeah, apparently we have twenty percent of the world's
total freshwater reserves.
Speaker 1 (51:12):
Yeah, what happened to the water wars? I thought those
were coming up soon exactly.
Speaker 3 (51:16):
So if anyone wants to see a funny made for
TV Canadian movie, look up H two oh with Paul
Gross I believe.
Speaker 1 (51:23):
Okay, if you want, if that's what you're looking for,
H two oh. Now back to the speech wrapping it up.
All in all, I personally think this is a huge overreaction.
It's an overreaction to rhetoric style and not looking at
(51:47):
how that belies a lack of information. There's not really
new information communicated in the whole thing, so it seems
like the reaction has gotten way out of hand because
of how low expectations are for politicians.
Speaker 2 (52:03):
Yes, I agree. I mean I think when you look
at the speech in its totality.
Speaker 3 (52:06):
It's like, yeah, it's it's it's just like a speech
with a bunch of shit in it that doesn't mean anything.
It just happens to also say something true which politicians,
especially at the World Economic Forum, don't say. And that
in itself, I guess, was the notable part of it.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
Right. And again that's why I think it's useful to.
Speaker 3 (52:25):
Evaluate it comparatively to other similar things, right, not in
isolation as like is this the best speech of the century,
but compared to other politicians.
Speaker 2 (52:35):
I mean it was. It was. I mean it made
news for a reason.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
I mean, I don't remember the last time a fucking
Davos speech made news. And like I said, yeah, and
it was funny. It got a standing ovation at Davos.
I don't know if you if you watched. At the
end of the speech, he goes and sits down and
has a bit of a Q and A with some
host guy, and the host guy I think said, wow,
like a standing ovation at Davos.
Speaker 2 (52:59):
I don't think I've ever seen that before.
Speaker 1 (53:01):
Huh, Well, it's a or a bunch of infants. So
we see someone stands up to the bully on the playground.
Speaker 2 (53:09):
Or thinks that they are.
Speaker 3 (53:10):
And that's, like I said, that's kind of the maybe
the fiction. The fiction is we can't really do anything else.
Speaker 1 (53:16):
There's swelling music in the background.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
Yeah, that's rather the truth is, we can't really do
anything else.
Speaker 2 (53:22):
The powerful have their power.
Speaker 4 (53:26):
We have something to the capacity to stop pretending, to
name reality, to build our strength at home, and to
act together.
Speaker 2 (53:36):
That is Canada's path.
Speaker 4 (53:39):
We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a
path wide open to any country willing to take it
with us.
Speaker 2 (53:48):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (53:55):
We have a rhetorical performer over here.
Speaker 3 (53:57):
Now, we have a rhetorical performing Dad with heavy, like
with wise, dad energy.
Speaker 1 (54:04):
Just disappointed. All right, it's a good place to cut it.
Steal you air.
Speaker 2 (54:09):
Man, bye bye. Well, I guess I have to cut it.
How the hell do I do that?
Speaker 4 (54:16):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (54:16):
Yeah? Do I just stop it? Yeah? Stop?
Speaker 3 (54:20):
Oh stop recording. Sorry, I'm bad at this. I don't
normally do this part.
This is like when philosophy is in the news, we
have to report on it. When Canada is in the
international news, we have to report on it too. Because
our leader, a sixty year old, gray haired man, is
so based. They're calling him Karl Marx Karney. They're calling
him Marx Karney, leader of bricks, who said that, No,
(00:36):
it's now brick brickicks, brickicks. Canada's here, everyone, We're important.
David French is talking about us.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Everyone's talking about us amazingly.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
We thought he was just our run of the mill
austerity technocrat, but no, he He's up there. He's using
four syllable words, which is kind of a shock to
hear out of a nation national leader.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
It is fascinating to see the contrast between him and Trump,
and I think that's part of it. I feel like
it's very situational. I think people see Carney. I mean,
I do think the speech was good, which is what
we're going to talk about. Good from a technical point
of view or an oratorical perspective, it was good. But
I do feel like some of the aura. I mean,
(01:22):
people are calling this like the speech of the century,
you know, people are talking about this as the most
important speech they've.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Ever heard in the generation. It's crazy, Like people are
saying that this is that David that this is what who.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Said David French, the New York Times resident Iraq war apologists.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Yeah, he might have said that, like a bunch of people,
a bunch of like important quote unquote pundits have said.
You know, it's like the speech of the century. It's
like a speech for the for a generation, for a time.
It's like a historical moment. Like some people are saying
that this speech is like there's going to be like
a before the speech and then after the speech, like
(02:04):
like Christ, it's like before and after the Carney speech.
It's a new BC. It's like you know, after and it.
But really in this case, it's like before and after
like the world economic or the rules based international order, right,
because that's kind of what.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
The speech was about. But yeah, it's crazy, And I think.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
So when a bunch of people who are consistently diagnostically
wrong on issues all agree that something is great, then
this should be held up. We should think of this
as an IQ test.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Yeah, this is the reaction of the speech was kind
of over the top, and I do think it was good.
But I also wonder whether it's just almost situationally because
it's such a sharp contrast from Trump that that people
whenever anybody, when someone just displays some oratorical, traditional leadership
function in a way that is like a radical contrast,
(02:57):
it maybe gives it an extra oomph.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
But of course it did.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
It did seem to describe something that resonated with a
lot of people. So I'm talking, of course about the
Davos speech.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
If you if you're you know, not up to.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Speed, but the Davos World Economic Forum where all the
globalists to go and meet and discuss the world domination.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Yeah, exactly, from the site of the New World Order.
The new New World Order has been declared by none
of than are our guy, our guy a couple of minutes.
We should just let ezracline clean clean the come out
of his underwear changes changes boxers. We're a smart country,
We're a based country. It was actually I had to
(03:38):
pause because it wasn't something you can just read or
listen to with your phone out, because it did use
for words. Yeah, the Trump Trump's response was having a
stroke on stage.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
I heard grateful.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
It's like I heard heard Carnie he didn't sound so grateful,
and he's like, Canada's I think he said Canada's alive
only because of us.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Remember that Mark.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Isn't that crazy. He's like twenty years older than him.
But Mark Mark gives Dad vibes and that's probably why
he's so threatening.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, exactly, so we could run.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I mean it was kind of a high as you say,
as you put it, a high syllable speech. He starts
off by, you know, I think in the in the
fifth paragraph or fourth paragraph, he's talking about Thucydides, you
know so, and then he starts talking about that Czech
dissident vast love novel, I mean, the Thucidities thing.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
Did you ever read Thucydides pills or no?
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Was it the Melian Dialogue?
Speaker 3 (04:42):
I think so, it's it's it's the one that also
ir people love talking about because.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
They want and the week except what they must. Yeah, yeah, exactly,
it's always that. That's the only thing from Thucidities I
even know.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yeah, and that's exactly the part that Carney quoted. And uh, of.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Course and uh and a Soviet Oh, I guess he's
not a Soviet? Was check?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
It wasn't part of the Soviet Union. It was part
of the Eastern Bloc. You know those other countries that
were like aligned and had.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
They had a socialist socialist quote unquote government, Yeah, which.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Were basically Soviet puppets, but they were like nominally like
not part of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Why is it all the best anecdotes and stories and
parables about the about what ideology does and is they
all come out of the last days of the Soviet Union,
the Eastern Bloc. Yeah, before we analyzed the rhetoric of
the speech, which is all I'm really capable of doing,
Mark Karney. By giving this speech, he also demonstrates that
(05:44):
he doesn't feel like he's personally in that much danger. Now,
isn't that a lot of faith to put in the
stroke wridden, decaying mind of Donald Trump? Because if he
decided my last act, my last act is Supreme Emperor,
is going to be to invade Canada and take it
as the fifty first state. There's not a lot that
(06:04):
we could do to stop it, and it'd probably be
over in you know, four days. Maybe we don't have
automatic weapons, we don't have nukes. For years we've been bragging,
ha ha, we don't have school shootings. But now now
it's coming back to bite us in the ass. We
don't have automatic weapons. Our army is smaller than ice. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
You know.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
One thing that's also interesting about this, like Carnie in Canada,
how much he how popular he is. I mean, he
was getting pretty popular even before this speech.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
But it was interesting.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
I was at a friend's place playing magic the gathering,
and I have one friend there who is I would say,
like very much in every man Canadian, like white white guy,
you know who's I wouldn't say particularly partisan, but for
a long time he was all in on Poliev, who
is the Conservative leader. He was all in on Pierre
Paul But he's the type of guy who's not really ideological.
(07:04):
You know, he's just kind of like looking at his
pocketbooks and he's like, this is pissing me off. Right,
So he was pissed off at Trudeau and like housing,
you know, he's at the age where he's like, look,
he was trying to buy a house and he was frustrated,
and all the stuff that Pauliev talked about about housing
policy resonated with him and he was like all in.
And it's just interesting how now and even when Carney
came into the picture, he was like, Okay, well maybe
(07:26):
this is gonna be a tougher decision.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
And then now he's like all about Carney. He like
loves Carney.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
He was like, this is exactly the leader we needed
for the time, and like he's totally shifted.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
So he wasn't the Poliev fan like, no, I just
want to be able to shovel my driveway without seeing
an Indian No exactly.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
I mean, I think that that is one of the things,
in my opinion, that marks Canadian politics as being quite
distinct from American politics. We have a lot more swing
voters in the sense of there's a lot of people
in the suburbs of Toronto and other suburban areas that
kind of shift depending on where the wind is blowing.
And a lot of those suburbs are also immigrant communities too,
(08:02):
like a lot of the Conservative Party, for them to
be successful, they need to win over immigrants. So that
just kind of makes it so that the kind of
conservative politics that can exist here is limited in its
kind of identitarian craziness. I just think it's not possible
for it to go for it to win and go
that far on the identitarian craziness. I just think it
couldn't It couldn't win.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
It couldn't win.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Yeah, as desperate as they are to copy American conservatism,
the race as a wedge issue kind of doesn't work.
You have to find the other wedge issues.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
It's kind of it's just not a good strategy accept
in Quebec.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
That there works.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Except in Quebec. They're a special case. Yeah they are.
They are a special case.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
But they're also weird because their nativism is like super
left wing most of it, Like like.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
What this I would want to see? Because if America invaded,
the Albertans would put out American flags hanging out their
window and cheer the tanks as they rolled through. Everyone else, Like,
we wouldn't be happy with it by any means, but
we kind of have to accept it because there's nothing
that we could do except for Quebec. Quebec would not
(09:08):
put up with that shit, and Quebec you'd have like
you'd be finding the bodies of politicians and car trunks.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
When the US might even be like we don't want
to deal with these people, let's just let them have
their own country.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Yeah, yeah, but this is a sign that Carney does
not really believe what he said, because if you believed
that there is nothing holding the rules based international order intact,
then why wouldn't Trump invade our country and take it over.
Like we don't have anything, we don't have automatic weapons.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Yeah, I mean, you know, even if we did have weapons,
we probably still wouldn't have much of a chance. I mean, yeah,
I think at this day and age, modern warfare is
all about the kind of technology, and the US has
crazy spooky military technology that can do fucking anything. So
I don't really you know, I don't think that it's
like us having guns, us being our I don't really
know that that would make much much of a difference.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Yeah, after they invade, after the invasion's over, they'll just
like send out a malware. So if you have Mark
Carney's speech in your browser history, then they'll just wait
till you're talking on your phone and blow up your head.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
So I guess to the content of the speech, I mean,
what did you take pills as a less you know,
as a less political theory oriented person, what did I'm curious,
what would what did you take to be the main
message or the thesis of the speech. What do you
think he was trying to get across?
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Oh, I would like to say when we planned to
cover this, we had someone who knew better what they
were talking about, but they weren't able to make it. Now. Admittedly,
the only way that I can evaluate this speech is aesthetically,
because I don't know anything about ir or international trade
(10:56):
or even what his country exports. So let's get the
caveat out of the way. But first point, Libitdally. We
crave a leader, qua father and this, this, only this
can explain why so many Americans reacted to this, just
totally libitdinally horny for a father figure. Because they are
(11:20):
being run right now by drunk uncle. They need to
go from drunk uncle back to dad, who just says
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. That's all they want
to hear. And this also is what Canadians wanted to
hear after having just it for so long, because Justin,
Justin could have never pulled off this speech. He doesn't
(11:41):
have the tambour, not the right tamber.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Oh yeah, I was thinking about that when I was
watching it as well. I was like, God, could you
imagine him saying this?
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Carney delivered it sounding and seeming intelligent, whereas if Justin
tried just's Justin's like the older cousin who's trying to
be cool, is more of his vibe, whereas Carney is
like smart dat or even just sober dad. Maybe that's what.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Everyone wants exactly exactly. And I think I also feel
that when I was watching the speech, I felt that, well,
there were platitudes in a sense, of course.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
There always are in these kinds of speeches.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
It struck me that there was actually quite a lot
of substance, right, whether you agree or disagree with the substance,
there was real substance in this speech. There was like
a real claim. It wasn't just like we're stronger when
we worked together where whatever, like where this or that?
Like he was making a real claim. It felt like,
which is I think why it resonated.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
So much with people. Yeah, with other world later.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Yeah, that's all that Justin was able to do.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
That Justin was full of platitudes.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Diversity is strength, but our strength is.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Diversity exactly exactly.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
And I but to your other point, no, I it's
interesting that you found this to be substantial because I
was trying to find what the substance was, and it's
quite elusive. There's something else though about how he delivers this.
Maybe this is just how speeches are written now, but
(13:14):
it sounds like it was written trying to get clips,
and the clips are ultimately what we saw on like
on Twitter or whatever you're on. Because these these end
speech or the end of the lines. Maybe I'll insert
an example.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
Yeah, and we are no longer just relying on the
strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
These end lines sound like they're made to be clipped.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Argue the middle powers must act together because if we're
not at the table, we're on the menu.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Yeah, for sure, there was a lot. There was a
lot of that.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
I feel like, I thought, like the breathless enthusiasm, like
trying to get on their knees to get just a
dribble of come on their face. It's just saying like
what's obviously true already, and that people are just so
shocked that someone can say something that's obviously true.
Speaker 4 (14:10):
Hedgemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to
hedge against uncertainty. They'll buy insurance, increase options in order
to rebuild sovereignty, sovereignty that was once grounded in rules
but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
But that point that you just said, though, pills that
people you know were creaming themselves because this guy was
just saying something that was obviously true. But that's important.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
And I think it's not just someone saying something true,
or it's a politician at Davos. The world economic order
is saying something that's true, right, And I think that
that's that's what surprises people. I mean, I think I
saw Glenn Greenwald, right, no fan of the globalist rules
based international order, whatever that means, he was kind of
(15:08):
shocked by the honesty, right, And that's kind of what
I heard. A lot of people, I would say, who
are more have left wing, like broadly leftist intuitions about
the world order. They were more like, Wow, he's just
saying what we've been saying for decades, like, and he
just came out and said it, right. And I think
maybe this quote exemplifies it. I think this is probably
(15:29):
like the quote that was clipped the most.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
He says, uh, for decades, countries like Canada prospered under
what we call the rules based international order. We joined
its institutions, we praised its principles, We benefited from its predictability,
and because of that we could pursue values based foreign
policies under its protection. We knew the story of the
international rules based order was partially false, that the strongest
(15:56):
would exempt themselves when convenient that trade, the rules were
enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with
varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or
the victim.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
This fiction was.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods,
open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and
support for frameworks for resolving disputes. So we placed the
sign in the window, We participated in the rituals, and
(16:33):
we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We
are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
So that's I think the core because Canada and other
countries are so dependent, are so integrated with the US economy,
and now that they have a leader that's kind of
using that integration to as a weapon that this is
kind of creating an unacceptable situation. He's actually just noticing
the thing. He's admitting basically that Canada knew this was
kind of bullshit. Although he did say partial reality, right,
(17:12):
he didn't say or he said partial fiction.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
He didn't say a full fiction.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah he did. He said partial fiction and never never
elaborated on the part of it that was true. This
is some mealy mouthed metaphysics from Mark Karney exactly. But
I do want to know. I do want to ask
him can ken the rules based order? Is this something
that is true or false? It's like the old old
(17:36):
metaphysical Greek question. If a circle has a hole in it,
it's no longer a circle. It doesn't matter how small
the hole is. There's a hole in the circle, it's
no longer a circle. If the international rules based Order
is partially false, that just renders it false.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
No, he's admitting that Canada benefited. That did it because
they knew it was in their interest, not because they
actually believe that the rules based international Order was you know,
a thing, And yeah, I don't know, is there what
was your feeling about that?
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Huh, Well, thanks for asking, but I need to say again,
if you want, if you want stock picks on this speech,
I'm the worst person to ask. And I feel like
my lack of knowledge is particularly significant here because we
don't know who the intended audience for the speech is, Like,
(18:28):
who could it be In an election year? It would
be Canadian voters because the only thing we vote based
on is not being America. So if he's saying, hey,
we're not America, then yeah, we then he could be
speaking to us. It's not an election yere though, So
is he speaking to the Americans? Is he speaking to
the American press press or the people that can nudge
Trump around saying, you know, cut out all this tariff
(18:51):
bullshit because you're messing with the money. And if you
mess with the money, we're going to go to China.
So I guess his leverage kind of is, hey, you're
a up, let's all go buy Chinese evs instead of Tesla?
Is that the strategy here? Because beyond that, I mean,
I guess I kind of disagree with you and everyone
else who says is a substantial or consequential speech because
(19:16):
all he all he said concretely is hey, we can
make deals with whoever we want. Which already was true
before that, and beyond that, he's saying, Hey, we live
in a simulation, and everyone in without their head in
the sound already knows that too. So I know, like personally,
(19:36):
I know that I'm missing the dog whistle register, and
I don't know like who he's actually talking to through
these words. But it is moderately interesting that there's like
a metaphysics to this in which the Breton Woods system
exists because people have agreed to believe in it, not
because they believe in it, and admitting that you don't
(19:58):
believe in it is a big deal. But also to that,
I mean, big whoop. Everyone knows that money exists because
we have agreed to believe in it, not because we
actually believe in it. But I do want to know.
I do want to know who the WII is, the
we that no longer believe, the we who chose to
believe and no longer do, because that's not us.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, yeah, he's obviously talking about the leadership.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
This guy, this fucking guy, he's an international banker with
three passports. Is that the weave?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
I mean, he definitely is.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Uh, you know, if you were to look up like
who's a globalist in the dictionary.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
I feel like Mark Karney would be, like, right there.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
He was the central banker for two central banks, worked
at Goldman Sachs in international finance. Like, he's a PhD
in economics. He used to have citizenship from three countries,
although he renounced Ireland and the UK when he became
Prime minister. Like he is globalist, you know.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Yeah, and why Ireland is that like a tax haven thing.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
I don't know why he had Irish citizenship, but obviously
he needed a UK citizen to be the leader of
the Bank of England.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Yeah, he's pretty he's pretty high flying for a Northwest
Territories boy. This is not a typical coastal elite.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Yeah, I know, amazingly he's a prairie boy. But then
I guess, I guess.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
The other thing worth talking about is like how he
opens the speech with this anecdote from this Czech dissident.
It's from an essay called the Power of the Powerlessness,
which was from nineteen seventy eights. This would have been
when Czechoslovakia, which at the time was one country, right
not split up when it like they were under communist rule.
Part of the Eastern Bloc, and he makes this point
(21:39):
about how fictional orders are sustained through lies. And he
talks about this example of the green grocer, which is
in Voslov's or Hovel's essay, where the green grocer every
morning would put up this sign, you know, workers of
the world unite. And this is how Carne puts it.
He says he doesn't believe it, no one does, but
(22:01):
he places a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance,
to get along. And because every shop keeper on every
street does the same, the system persists not through violence alone,
but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they
privately know to be false. And that's what Hovell called
living within a lie. And that same thing Hobvell claimed
(22:27):
is what makes those kinds of systems fragile. Is if
they are predicated on such a strong lie, then as
soon as people start to take their signs down, as
he's talking about it, then the whole system can collapse
quite quickly. And this is something that I feel like
Slowo has talked about quite a bit. I Rememberjack used
(22:47):
to make this kind of joke point about how if
there was like a communist meeting, and then someone speaks
out against the regime in the meeting, and then someone
else gets up and says, how dare you speak against?
You know, this leadership and this structure. Was like that
second guy would get killed first because he's exposing that
(23:09):
like that, like we're not allowed to dissent.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Right, Defending the lie is a way of admitting the
lie exists, which.
Speaker 3 (23:17):
Is exactly whereas the other guy's just being and like
nominally in these you know, people's republics, they're supposed to
be democratic, you're supposed to nominally, right, they pretend that
you're allowed to have opinions.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
So it's like the first person would obviously get.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
In trouble because they're speaking against the regime, but the
second one, who's exposing the fact that this is all
bullshit by saying how dare you speak out against would
be in more trouble.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Is kind of Geck's point.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I took the point that Carne would, now it's interesting
to apply this to international relations, right, because obviously this
is talking about how totalitarian regimes function. So his point here,
I guess, is that countries, even though they knew that
the rules based international order was kind of bullshit that
(24:03):
it was. Really we were doing things to benefit from
the US hegemony, and if we pretend that we agree
with everything, then we're going to benefit and we won't
get in trouble.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
So we'll just go ahead.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
And now that's not working anymore. But you know, I
don't know if it's like a perfect one to one match.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Yeah, you got to imagine it's probably like it's loaded
or some sort of faux pas. To compare the current
global order and it's sort of decaying or decadent institutions
to the late socialism, late socialism in the USSR, in
the Eastern Bloc right, they're both decadent. They're both failed
(24:42):
attempts that relied on a story instead of reality. Now
there was something I was interested in here structurally, and
that is the recursion. Because all of the praise about
the speech being delivered was how it's being honest, But
the speech itself is also saying we're taking the sign
(25:03):
out of the window. We're finally going to be honest,
and what's the brutal honesty that we're going to hit
the world with. Oh, well, the United States is exempting
itself whatever it feels like, it's just like that's not
the hardest, deepest truth if you if you live in
El Salvador or Honduras or Guatemala or Chile.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Yeah, yeah, totally.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
But I guess the same thing would probably apply it
to talitarian regimes though, too, right, like they would like
everyone kind of knows, don't you think. So it's like
it's like not really a and maybe this is really
epistemology comes in because it's like.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
People, Oh, I don't know, I don't know about the
word totalitarian.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Okay, sure, whatever we want to talk about.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Sneak your horseshoe theory in here. The hypernormalization of it.
You need, you need to pretend like there's power when
they're isn't actual power anymore. Like you're not gonna die
for not having the sign in your window the way
you would be if you criticize the the Nazi government
in nineteen forty. So I don't That's why I don't
like totalitarian, because it's just meant to say communism.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
And well, that guy might get in trouble though for
taking the sign down, like if he's the only one,
like he might get in shit.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
He's probably not gonna die, but he'd probably get in trouble.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I think though, the point of this kind of ideology
where everyone pretends that the thing is still going on,
happens when the thing isn't going on anymore. So you
pretend that the power exists, You pretend that Workers of
the World unit is still a truth after it's no
longer a truth. If the government were totalitarian, they would
just kill you for right.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Disagree, Right, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
You have to save face in front of the other.
That's when you pretend, no, this is actually a democracy
and it's actually what everybody wants. So this applies to
Mark Harney situation here that we don't we don't want
to pretend that this is true anymore.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Right right now?
Speaker 1 (27:09):
Of course, I like, I love I love when stuff
like this happens because it shows the simulation.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
I was curious about that.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Yeah, this is a situation that just perfectly fits my sociology,
both both denying the obvious simulation and then the orotund
masturbatory rhetoric about how brave it.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
Is to.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Say something's false that everybody already knows it's false. This
is perfect. So what does it reveal? What does it reveal?
In terms of metaphysics. Now, it's already true that social
systems must be simulations, which is to believe that there
is a code or an organizing principle that runs the thing,
(27:57):
and it has to be believed in. That matters way
more than if it's true. If it's believed in, you
can create a social system around it. Like God doesn't exist,
but you can create extremely complex hierarchies, social systems of
investment based on belief in God. Also an economy. You
(28:19):
cannot get people to believe in an economy unless they
believe that there is some secret to value, that value
exists somewhere, and belief here just means that you do
the things that are required. So he says sign in
the window. Like we can criticize money or the or
fiat currency. The conspiracy theorists love going after fiat currency.
(28:43):
This is based on nothing. Even if you know that
money's based on nothing. When you go to the store,
you use it. It just matters what you do, what
you do. You can criticize anything you want in your
private time, but as long as when you go out
then you use the thing, then you're propagating the system.
(29:04):
You know, back in the day, if you don't believe
in God, then that's fine as long as you're tithing
to the church properly, and they're keeping records. So if
you don't tithe properly, the consequences are that you're I
don't know, I don't know what they would do, exclude
you from finance, exclude you from the social world in
(29:24):
some way, which is a worse punishment. So it doesn't
matter whether you believe in God in your head. It
matters that you demonstrate believe in God by giving your tithe.
And that's what I took out of this. But it
doesn't mean that Trump destroyed it, right. This is what
I disagree with every anti Trumper in the New York
(29:44):
Times opinion section, which is really funny about this because
that's the thing that binds them together. But the Trump
exposing that it no longer exists anymore means that it
died at some point in the past. And this is
to me the matter of the bait. Like Warhol signals
the end of art. But Warhol himself didn't kill Art.
(30:05):
He was just the one who exposed it for.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
What I noticed it.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, Trump is the signal that the thing never held
true in the first place, but he's not the guy
who killed it. And funnily enough, this proves Francis Fukiyama
the the most wrong philosopher.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Is that's interesting just to back to go back to
like the novel example, though, are you saying that it
was never true in the sense because the lie, right,
the workers of the world unite in that is that
like this regime is really about workers, right, And the
lie or the truth is that it's not really it's
actually about this like party having power, Like it's not
(30:44):
really about democracy and workers, right, it's about So that's
the lie that gets exposed. That was that was already
a lie, right, it was already not true.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Now this is where if you're gonna go with my theory,
you can't really use the word lie and truth. That's
why I use the word secret, because the secret you
can believe in it without actually knowing whether it's true
or false. If you believe in the true in the rules,
(31:15):
you make the rules true. Yeah, So it doesn't matter
whether it's true or not. It just matters whether people
believe in it. Any social system is like this. Any
game is like this too, Like there are no objective
rules for chess there's only agreed upon rules for chess.
The power of the cult leader is not that he
(31:36):
has connection to the other world. It's that his followers
believe that he has connection to the other world. That's
what makes a cult is their belief in his power,
which gives him power. So workers of the World unite.
It's neither true nor false. But the power of workers
of the World unite is that people believe in it.
(31:59):
If people people don't believe in it, then it's not real.
So it's not lie versus truth because that could be true, right,
it could be true workers over the world. You know,
you have nothing to lose with your change if everyone
believed in it. The problem is that they did.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
Yeah, yeah, And that's actually something I wish Eric was here,
but he didn't show up today.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Is uh.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
I was curious about the ways in which we think that.
You know, maybe this moves things more towards the Hovel
or the kind of thing about how ideology functions. But
you know, to what extent does Hovel's analysis apply to
a liberal democracy?
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Right?
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I mean, there's definitely lies, there's definitely ideology, but it
almost seems like a reversal in a liberal democratic context
where it's almost like like you can call out the
untruth as much as you want, but the thing still
functions somehow, Like it's it's kind of weird. It's like
(32:59):
it's like it's like a bizarre I'm trying to map
this out in my head because I don't quite have
it straight. But it's like because in this example of
these communist regimes, everyone is not allowed to say the
thing that's not true, and everyone's afraid to say the
thing that's not true that and it's a threat saying
(33:22):
the thing that's not true allowed could be a threat
to the regime, Whereas in liberal democracies it's almost like
everyone is saying the thing that is not true, but
there's a bunch of people who are also saying things
critiques that are also untrue critiques, and it's almost like
they're flooded. It's flooded with discourse. And maybe it's because
it's so flooded it has no effect or something.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
It's well, it matters who said it is. Anyone who's
anyone who knows anything has said that for a long
time that the United States can break the Geneva Convention
without consequence whenever it feels like when it feels like
opening a prison in Iraq, you know, yeah, but it matters.
This is why everyone's teary eyed about it is because
(34:05):
a leader actually said it. Yeah, the leaders are supposed
to believe for us, because none of us are capable
of believing in something so absurd.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Yeah, But that's what makes the pundits of the New
York Times so teary eyed is because one of the
actual Haparatics, one of the actual members of the party,
one of the inner circle of the globalist world order. Yeah,
that they don't even believe it. And that's the other
(34:37):
thing I about saying we like, we we went along
with this. We all pretended, but you're one of the guys,
like your office at least you represent not just the
nation but the entire system.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Well, he was also giving the speech at the World
Economic Forum.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
So the we is the people in the room too.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
He's like looking at the other leaders, He's looking at
the other people in the room who are part of it.
I feel like he's kind of trying to signal to
everyone there like, yeah, we went along with it for
a while, but we but it's bullshit, or like at
least it's and it's not working for us anymore. It's
not to our benefit anymore. We should try to do
something different. And what that different thing is is also
a bit unclear.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
But well, he came home and cut a whole bunch
of government jobs, so something like that. Well, and then also,
did you know that we have a lower corporate tax
rate in the United States. That's insane.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
That's recent. Eh.
Speaker 1 (35:29):
I don't know if the low I don't know how
much he lowered it by, but that's one thing he
did last year. So yeah, he's a he and he's
cutting cutting government spending in order to make that happen.
He's in austerity tecto crap.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
Or what they call a red Tory, you know, a
kind of a still liberal but technically kind of a
Tory conservative kind of guy.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Globalization.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
I remember when I was in high school, I had
an international business professor and he I could tell he
was so like, uh, left wing, and it was good,
it was cool, like it's that's not a bad thing.
But it would I could see it would like slip
into his lessons, Like he would just start ranting about
the World Trade Organization and like and the IMF giving
you know, poor countries really shitty deals. I mean, that's
(36:13):
what happened to Venezuela at one point, right, I think
they got like a like a crazy like loan package
from the International Monetary Fund that all those deals always said,
you have to, you know, privatize everything if you want
to get this money from US, which would kind of
dictate a certain kind of ideological or economic ideological framework,
(36:35):
it would kind of impose it on countries if they
wanted loans.
Speaker 1 (36:40):
Well, this, I think this has to be a sort
of litmus test to see what kind of idiot you are,
because he basically lists a bunch of problems of capitalism,
predatory you know, predatory loans, getting mining rights or oil
rights or mineral rights or land rights in third world
kind of trees to do whatever you want there. And
(37:03):
he's saying, well, this is unfair the way that the
United States has implemented it. But oh wait, now we
need a chance for our middle our middle power, That's
what I guess he calls us. We need our middle
power companies the chance to dictate the terms of the
global order, and we're going to go to China if
America doesn't give our companies a good deal. So yeah,
(37:24):
this is he speaks to the unfairnesses in the global system,
but then just says, well, now we're gonna try somehow.
Nothing's clear about this, but we're gonna try somehow working
together as a block. Rather than being deferential to American
corporate interests, We're gonna, I don't know, seek out Norwegian
(37:48):
interest I don't I don't have any clue this is.
This is actually a big question, like what does he
actually want here? Who is this good for? Because he's
a fucking international banker. It's not gonna it's not for
us that he's doing this.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
Or we should do stuff.
Speaker 3 (38:02):
We should do more stuff together, like Canada and Europe
should be more interconnected, should should make more deals like
that cuts the US out or something.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
It's not a declaration of war on our largest trading partner,
but it's not clear what it is. He's just saying,
I'm a brave person. Is the whole is the signal
or this whole speech? We're brave people.
Speaker 4 (38:24):
And because every shop keeper on every street does the same.
The system persists not through violence alone, but through the
participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to
be false. Pavel called this living within a lie. The
system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's
(38:46):
willingness to perform as if it were true.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
When he says that one line, he says something like,
it's not that the system's true. It works because everyone
acts like it's true. That's not That doesn't apply to
late socialism and the current hegemonic American world order. That
is just that's how human, how human systems, all of
(39:11):
them work.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
We don't.
Speaker 1 (39:12):
Language is not true. Language works because people believe that
it can convey or represent truths.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
I mean, I would say that that's he was like
just saying something that people were shocked a leader would
say out loud. But then when it comes to the
substance of what he's saying, especially when it comes to
the upshot or the recommendation, it's like, yeah, America, where
we're kind of at the at the whims of you know,
(39:42):
this hedgemon America, but you know, and.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
It made sense.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
We were getting a pretty good deal out of it,
and now we're not getting a good deal. It's funny
because from Trump's perspective, I feel like he says all
the time, He's like, well, They've just gotten way too
sweet of a deal from us in the past, and
now it's not worth it for us anymore.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
He was also widely.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Quoted and I wonder what you thought about this. He said,
Nostalgia is not a strategy right for the old order?
Do you did you do you remember that it's another banger.
It doesn't mean anything, but yeah, it's a banger.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
It's a banger, but it doesn't mean anything exactly.
Speaker 4 (40:19):
It's we are taking a sign out of the window.
We know the old order is not coming back. We
shouldn't warn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we
believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger,
more just. This is the task of the middle powers,
(40:40):
the countries that have the most to lose from a
world of fortresses and a most to gain from genuine cooperation.
Speaker 3 (40:47):
That's another thing where like, okay, obviously the global international
order is you know, fake for all these reasons we've
been talking about, and I think Carney's right to point
out the way it's been used on weaker countries to
the benefit of the stronger, and especially to the benefit
of the United States and.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
To our benefit. Our mining companies. Our mining companies owned
like all of Central America.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Yep, they had lots of gold company. Canadian gold companies
own a bunch of mines all over the world.
Speaker 1 (41:15):
Yeah. So when he says we're gonna build a more
just system, like, what does what does justice mean coming
from a banker that we're going to relinquish our mining
rights in Central America, South America and Africa? No, of
course not. So what does he say? I guess he's
calling for solidarity among the middle powers to continue to
(41:37):
exploit the weaker country. It has to be that, right.
Mining companies are like like forty percent of the TSX.
If he were to say, okay, we're we're gonna be
a just country from now on, that would be it
would be suicide, be suicide for our economy.
Speaker 3 (41:55):
But uh and then but then when he says it's
not coming back, Uh uh, I guess I feel like
it could though, Like if Trump leaves office and just
some new guy like no normal president gets elected.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
I feel like it could just come back. I don't know,
Like why.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
Not, Well, no, I don't. This is just a material
fact that the peak, the peak of the American economy
relative to the rest of the world was in like
that it ten seventies or something that's like that, that's true,
coming back.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
That's true, that's true.
Speaker 3 (42:30):
And I guess even and Carney's response to me it
would probably be like, but now it's just been exposed
as a fragile situation. Next then next JD. Vans will
be elected and it'll be back to the old ways,
so you can't rely on it anymore. Like there's no
all these norms that American presidents were following when it
came to like international trade strategy, trade policy have been
(42:50):
broken so that there's no more norms, so we can't
rely on any anymore. So it is over in that sense.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
I guess.
Speaker 1 (42:56):
Well, now we have the other metaphysical question. If we
show that the simulation is false, which any normal person
has known for a long time, but now that Carney
is admitting it, this is a signal, a worse signal
for the simulation. Now does the simulation give way to
reality TM or does it give way to another simulation?
(43:21):
Because you can see you can see that Karney does
not believe that the system is over, because if it were,
then he would not have given this speech, because if
he believed that the United States can do whatever it wants,
(43:43):
then he should be worried now about being black bagged.
They could send Jaysock into his house at Ottawa and
kidnap him. That's something that they could do. They could
annex our country. It wouldn't be that much of a problem.
And I mean in terms of reality. You know, if
you ran this as a computer simulation, we wouldn't we
(44:03):
wouldn't have a chance. He wouldn't have a chance. But
the fact that he dares to say this proves that
he doesn't think that the simulation is collapsed, that we're
not on the brink of Trump actually doing whatever he wants.
So there is still there remains a magical force that
(44:25):
that is holding Trump and America in its decayed decadence state.
It's still holding them back, so they don't So we
are not in reality.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
Well there is no reality?
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Oh really that's your position?
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Now, Well, I mean, there is some reality, but I'm
just saying that there's no there's not going to be
like a yeah, there's going to be some other spontaneous
whether spontaneous or manipulated, like ideologically mediated, you know, form
of agreement in the global order.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
Right, It's just.
Speaker 3 (45:02):
You know, it's always going to be some fictional aspects
of it, I guess, I feel.
Speaker 1 (45:07):
And that's really what he's going for, Like, if this
means anything, he's calling for solidarity, not obviously worker solidarity,
but solidarity among the middle countries to act as a
block and to not capitulate to the United States, which
means it's not really clear what it means, trading a
little bit more with China. I guess group deals with China,
(45:29):
and Canada's going to go with Europe.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
And we are also geogray geographically.
Speaker 3 (45:33):
I mean, we're right by the States. It's just crazy
not to like we're we're kind of fucked in that sense.
It's like we're right beside it, and that was like
part of our advantage. But now it's it's like, yeah,
what are we going to do?
Speaker 1 (45:45):
So, yeah, this is the thing, This is the key
to the whole thing. And I don't know what it
is because I have I'm ignorant to the way this
stuff works. But Mark Kearney is trying to get someone
to do something. Who is that someone and what is
that thing? Like Europeans probably China, who knows.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
I agree it was not clear what those things are.
I would say, you trade, yeah, I mean he made
an agreement to try to trade with China. I think
he wants to diversify, but ultimately, like what is that
really gonna do? And in this case, it seems like
maybe it's going to piss off Trump.
Speaker 2 (46:21):
The Trump, He's got his hands full right now. I mean,
it's it's what a disaster.
Speaker 3 (46:24):
I mean, I know we're not here to talk about it,
but like, holy shit, what a disaster in Minneapolis, And
like it's just what a shithole country America is becoming.
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Holy crap.
Speaker 1 (46:36):
Another simulation is cops.
Speaker 2 (46:40):
Yeah, ice, ice officers, ice, ice, Gestapo.
Speaker 1 (46:43):
Well, the simulation gives way of the Gestapo, and then
you're left wondering, Okay, what's a real cop. It's just
a it's just an ice officer with a different badge.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 1 (46:55):
I have another theory to add to the pile, which
actually I think it makes sense. Maybe this is all
just a theater, a stage production on behalf of Mark
Carney to speak to his other peers, the big money
guys like Jamie Diamond, Jamie Diamond leveled dudes, because well,
(47:16):
Jamie Diamond and Trump now they're having a tiff. But
Jamie Diamond supposedly the first time the tariffs went around,
like got on the horn and said, Bro, you're fucking
with the money. You don't want to go this way.
So maybe if there's anyone like that left, maybe Mark
Carney is signaling to them like, hey, I'm gonna lead,
(47:37):
I'm gonna lead an exodus with all these people unless
you get this guy back in line. That could be
another potential audience for who's listening to this threat. Definite,
then it would just be all it's a simulation of
a simulation saying we're gonna pull out of this unless
you bring it back.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
Yeah, I think that's definitely a strong possibility. Like I'm
sure he did that to try to send a message,
maybe as a bargaining chip, but I don't know if
it's gonna work. I mean, as far as I've seen,
I feel like Trump kind of liked Carney. Well, he
respects him because he's a money guy, and Trump is
just like anyone who deals with money is like worth listening.
I mean, it's I was gonna say before when we
(48:15):
were talking about Trudeau, Like I remember when I was
watching the Carney speech. I had this sort of insight
that it makes so much sense that Trudeau was just
a school teacher. Like the way that he talks like
it's just so like it feels like he's such a
school teacher, like just some primary school or middle school teacher.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
And it's like and then here's a real like.
Speaker 1 (48:39):
You could say he speaks condescendingly, but it's like he
likes you, yes, while being condescending, like.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
A teacher, Yes, exact a teacher.
Speaker 1 (48:49):
A teachers who's dumbing it down. But they're also kind
of dumb, so they're not you know, they're talking to
you like they like you while not really respecting your intelligence,
but also not being intelli legit. We've solved it exactly.
Speaker 2 (49:02):
He talked to the public like their children a little bit.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
Yes, it's not lying, it's a it's not lying. It's
a dumb person dumbing it down for your sake because
he wants to seem like he likes you.
Speaker 3 (49:16):
No, No, he was like a progressive, a hyper progressive
teacher who's just like you know, the tone of his voice.
It makes so much sense. And and like I don't
even remember why I brought that up, but like just
seeing the way that Carney talks about things. Yeah, like
it's such a it's such a contrast to Trudeau. Oh no,
that's and that's also why Trump didn't respect Trudeau. Also,
(49:37):
He's like he could tell us like this guy's just
a fucking teacher.
Speaker 1 (49:39):
Like yeah, yeah. It's funny that we're now, like what
do you call it upholding Denmark's claims to Greenland, because
it was back this is a distant memory. Back in
the early two thousands, it made national news that Canada
(49:59):
and Denmark were like disputing some random island in the Arctic,
like who actually owned it? And this was this was
like a big deal before anyone was threatening just to
take the entire island. Now it was this tiny little
island and Denmark landed some troops on it, and then
Canada landed some troops on it.
Speaker 2 (50:20):
It's funny that there.
Speaker 3 (50:21):
Do you know that In two thousand and three, I
think there was a like a Canadian TV movie that
was like kind of a sci fi alternate universe where
Canada becomes part of the States.
Speaker 2 (50:34):
It's called H two O.
Speaker 3 (50:36):
Because back then the big conspiracy was that the Americans
are going to run out of fresh water, and Canada
has like the second or third most freshwater in the world,
and that America is going to just annex Canada to
take our fresh water.
Speaker 1 (50:49):
Wow, we're only second in that. I would have put
us first.
Speaker 2 (50:54):
Maybe we're first. Let's fact check that.
Speaker 1 (50:59):
Brazil Russia has more. Brazil has the most.
Speaker 2 (51:02):
Oh Brazil. Okay, you looked at up.
Speaker 3 (51:05):
Interesting, Yeah, apparently we have twenty percent of the world's
total freshwater reserves.
Speaker 1 (51:12):
Yeah, what happened to the water wars? I thought those
were coming up soon exactly.
Speaker 3 (51:16):
So if anyone wants to see a funny made for
TV Canadian movie, look up H two oh with Paul
Gross I believe.
Speaker 1 (51:23):
Okay, if you want, if that's what you're looking for,
H two oh. Now back to the speech wrapping it up.
All in all, I personally think this is a huge overreaction.
It's an overreaction to rhetoric style and not looking at
(51:47):
how that belies a lack of information. There's not really
new information communicated in the whole thing, so it seems
like the reaction has gotten way out of hand because
of how low expectations are for politicians.
Speaker 2 (52:03):
Yes, I agree. I mean I think when you look
at the speech in its totality.
Speaker 3 (52:06):
It's like, yeah, it's it's it's just like a speech
with a bunch of shit in it that doesn't mean anything.
It just happens to also say something true which politicians,
especially at the World Economic Forum, don't say. And that
in itself, I guess, was the notable part of it.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
Right. And again that's why I think it's useful to.
Speaker 3 (52:25):
Evaluate it comparatively to other similar things, right, not in
isolation as like is this the best speech of the century,
but compared to other politicians.
Speaker 2 (52:35):
I mean it was. It was. I mean it made
news for a reason.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
I mean, I don't remember the last time a fucking
Davos speech made news. And like I said, yeah, and
it was funny. It got a standing ovation at Davos.
I don't know if you if you watched. At the
end of the speech, he goes and sits down and
has a bit of a Q and A with some
host guy, and the host guy I think said, wow,
like a standing ovation at Davos.
Speaker 2 (52:59):
I don't think I've ever seen that before.
Speaker 1 (53:01):
Huh, Well, it's a or a bunch of infants. So
we see someone stands up to the bully on the playground.
Speaker 2 (53:09):
Or thinks that they are.
Speaker 3 (53:10):
And that's, like I said, that's kind of the maybe
the fiction. The fiction is we can't really do anything else.
Speaker 1 (53:16):
There's swelling music in the background.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
Yeah, that's rather the truth is, we can't really do
anything else.
Speaker 2 (53:22):
The powerful have their power.
Speaker 4 (53:26):
We have something to the capacity to stop pretending, to
name reality, to build our strength at home, and to
act together.
Speaker 2 (53:36):
That is Canada's path.
Speaker 4 (53:39):
We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a
path wide open to any country willing to take it
with us.
Speaker 2 (53:48):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (53:55):
We have a rhetorical performer over here.
Speaker 3 (53:57):
Now, we have a rhetorical performing Dad with heavy, like
with wise, dad energy.
Speaker 1 (54:04):
Just disappointed. All right, it's a good place to cut it.
Steal you air.
Speaker 2 (54:09):
Man, bye bye. Well, I guess I have to cut it.
How the hell do I do that?
Speaker 4 (54:16):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (54:16):
Yeah? Do I just stop it? Yeah? Stop?
Speaker 3 (54:20):
Oh stop recording. Sorry, I'm bad at this. I don't
normally do this part.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.