Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Canada Page 1 of 8

Khamenei Is Responsible For Every Single Iranian Death

By

On March 3, 2026

40 Comments

There’s a lot to admire about Khameini. He was personally brave (fought in the Iran/Iraq war on the front lines), he was well educated, and within the limits of his religious beliefs quite humane. He was entirely opposed to nuclear weapons.

And that last bit was his greatest failure. North Korea is fine. No North Koreans are dead because of American attacks.

Iran could have had nuclear weapons any time in the last twenty years, at least. Iran was attacked, twice, because it didn’t have nukes, not because it did.

The lesson of Israeli and American actions makes it clear that every nation in the world needs nukes. Every single one.

This is what the NPT regime and the taboo against using nukes was meant to make unnecessary. But every time. Every time I talk about the possibility of Iran winning the war someone says “well then Israel or America will nuke them.”

If this is true, it means that Iran needs and needed nukes and so does everyone else.

If nukes aren’t “off the table” for pre-emptive use, everyone needs to have them.

This is what America has wrought.

(Secondary note: as a Canadian it is in my self interest for the US to take the largest losses possible. Every hit America takes makes me and my country safer. There is only one country in the world which has threatened to annex Canada, after all, and unfortunately, no one paid attention to me over the last 30 years when I said the US wasn’t trustworthy and we needed a deterrent.)

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

Understanding the Competent Concierge: Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney

By

On January 22, 2026

47 Comments

Carney gave an important speech yesterday, which you can read here. That lead to a lot of people praising him for his honesty in noting that the rules-based order was accepted by developed nations because they benefited from it, even though everyone knew it was bullshit: if you weren’t in the club, the rules didn’t apply to you. And even if you were in the club, the rules didn’t always apply to you, but most of them did and overall the benefits outweighed the costs, at least as far as our ruling class was concerned.

Carney points out that this deal has been violated in a rupture. The old world order is dead. People who say that it died in Gaza are WRONG. Mass murder of brown people in a non-developed country is acceptable to the rules based order. (It would not be acceptable in South Korea or Japan.)

But there’s something very important in Carney’s speech: he brags about having dropped taxes and that’s a clue.

Carney is clear eyed and honest enough to recognize the hypocrisy of the old system. He was a participant, but he was one of the rare powerful participants who was able to function and realize some of the injustices of the old system. He knew it was bullshit. Most people need to entirely believe in a system, they can’t handle the moral dissonance. To Carney the trade off was worth if it you were part of the Global North, and he was willing to live with that and participate in it.

Now long before Carney was Prime Minister I had criticized him. As a central banker he blew two housing bubbles, one in Canada and one in Britain, which massively hurt ordinary people and he bailed out bankers and rich people during the financial collapse. In fact, his performance in Canada was abysmal, in that it set up a new housing bubble basically immediately.

But housing bubbles are good for rich people. They get the benefits, not the costs.

And that’s the key to understanding Carney. He’s not a left winger. He’s not a post war liberal. He’s a neoliberal technocrat, and the job of neoliberal technocrats is to keep making the rich richer. It really is almost that simple and if you use that as your guide to their actions you’ll be right most of the time.

Let’s go back to those taxes. One of Carney’s goals is to reindustrialize Canada. It’s a real goal, he’s taking action on it, spending money on it and cutting deals pursuing it. But low corporate taxes and low marginal top individual tax rates undercuts that goal. The higher corporate taxes are the more it makes sense to reinvest earnings in production. If top individual rates are low, the rich want money cashed out thru stock buybacks (which should be illegal if you want industrial growth, because they too encourage wasting money that could be reinvested in production) or dividends.

You should also have high capital gains taxes on short term gains. Ninety percent if cashed out under five years, dropping 10% a year after that is a good benchmark, with exceptions for primary residences and a few other niche cases. Again, you want people investing for the long term, and this also cuts out a lot of the bullshit that happens due to stock options.

So if Carney’s only goal was re-industrializtion, and he was method-agnostic, not an ideologue, he would raise certain taxes rather than lowering them.

But he didn’t do that, because Carney, like most politicians and senior technocrats in our system, is a concierge for the rich. His job is to make them better off. They don’t want to be annexed by the US or to have to live in fear of a fickle US changing deals at a whim. But they still want to be super rich. In the old world order that meant having access to the US, because US returns were outsized compared to non-US returns. Every elite in every other country wanted access to US financial markets. But that access is not worth the price any more.

What makes Carney different from most current elite concierges is that he is actually competent, not a worthless courtier, and that he’s able to see the hypocrisies of the system. He’s self-aware.

I supported Carney in the last election and I still support him because while he’s far from what I want, he’s at least doing some of the right things. Enough of the right things to be worth supporting. That doesn’t mean I like him, or even think he’s a good person. He isn’t. But he’s competent and has enough guts to move away from the US. While he does so he’s making a lot of compromises like joining the Board of Peace. That’s an evil act and I’m sure he knows it is, being clear eyed, but it’s a minor evil act because Canada doesn’t have a potential veto on how Palestinians are treated.

I wish he was better and my support is very conditional. Perhaps I’m not as pure as I should be. Feel free to flay me in the comments. But a man who helps break up the American Empire, and that’s what Carney is doing by being the first to make a real break with the US and with his speech calling for the middle powers to abandon America, is doing enough to make it over to the “on the balance, more good than evil” book in my mind. Now if he had a veto on Gaza the way an American President does, it’d be different.

He doesn’t and he’s helping destroy the old world order while being by far and away the best current option for Canada.

We need better if we’re ever going to move back to a truly good economy in western countries or a more good than evil world order. Carney’s still a concierge for the rich. But in helping protect Canada’s rich, he’s helping destroy the American Empire and that will be good for billions of people, including Palestinians, and he’s protecting Canada from America and some of what he’s doing will be good for ordinary people.

Even if Carney’s motives for helping destroy the old order are crass, the fact that he’s doing so is enough for me.

 

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

Carney’s Speech Transcript + Comments: Time For the Truth & For the Middle Powers To Align

By

On January 21, 2026

48 Comments

I think this is worth posting in full. Once again Carney and Canada are moving faster than any of America’s vassals, which is fascinating because Canada is the most vulnerable to the US of all the vassals. But then, that’s why, plus some luck.

Carney was the UK’s and Canada’s central banker. He did a terrible job, blowing two housing bubbles. I backed him in the last election because he was saying the right things, and the alternative was a Trump style conservative with a room temperature IQ who would spread wide for Trump.

Carney spends much of his time in this speech pointing out that the old order was full of hypocrisy. He should know, he had to say all the mealy mouthed lies, you can’t have the jobs he had otherwise. But he didn’t have to say this now, he didn’t have to point this out, he could have just moved to the fact that there’s a rupture.

His point is that the old world provided a lot of benefits to many nations like Canada and Europe, and even though everyone knew it was in many ways unjust, if the price of admission was hypocrisy, then so be it. But that world is dead, the benefits are gone and we don’t have to pretend it wasn’t in some ways awful. We also shouldn’t pretend that world is coming back or that the benefits of that world some nations received can be regained by appeasing Trump and America.

As for Carney’s plan, it’s simple: the middle powers should ally with each other so they can’t be pushed around. In other words, don’t just switch vassalage over to China. But certainly do cut deals with China.

Carney’s Speech

Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.

This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable — the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.

It won’t.

So, what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. In it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?

His answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He does not believe it. No one believes it. But he places the sign anyway — to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper 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.

Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.

It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down. For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. 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 would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was 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 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. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.

More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving — are greatly diminished.

As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.

And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty— sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

This classic risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls — or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture. Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid.

Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed ‘values-based realism’ — or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights. Pragmatic in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values.

We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for the world as we wish it to be. Canada is calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values. We are prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next. We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.

We are building that strength at home. Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, capital gains and business investment, we have removed all federal barriers to inter-provincial trade, and we are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond. We are doubling our defence spending by 2030 and are doing so in ways that builds our domestic industries.

We are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, Europe’s defense procurement arrangements. We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in the last six months. In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, Mercosur.

To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests. On Ukraine, we are a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security. On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.

Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering. We are working with our NATO allies (including the Nordic Baltic 8) to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, submarines, aircraft, and boots on the ground.

On plurilateral trade, we are championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, creating a new trading block of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we are forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so that the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. On AI, we are cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure we will not ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.

This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on diminished institutions. It is building the coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. And it is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities. Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu. Great powers can afford to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.

But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact. We should not allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield it together.

Which brings me back to Havel. What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”?

It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.

It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the hegemon to restore an order it is dismantling, create institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.

Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s priority. Diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. We have capital, talent, and a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.

Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable, reliable partner—in a world that is anything but—a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.

Canada has something else: a recognition of what is happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

We are taking the sign out of the window. The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just. This is the task of the middle powers, who have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from a world of genuine cooperation.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

Canadian LapDog Breaks For Exit After Trump Declares Dog Is On The Menu

By

On January 16, 2026

30 Comments

Canada has cut a trade deal with China. This is what I have been suggesting for ages, and it’s finally happening. (Not, of course, because Carney reads me, but because it’s the obvious play and of all Western leaders he’s been the most resistant to Trump’s threats and blackmail.) Canada cuts a deal:

Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Canadian PM Mark Carney have announced lower tariffs, signalling a reset in their countries’ relationship after a key meeting in Beijing.

China is expected to lower levies on Canadian canola oil from 85% to 15% by 1 March, while Ottawa has agreed to tax Chinese electric vehicles at the most-favoured-nation rate, 6.1%, Carney told reporters…

…

In the deal struck on Friday, Canada will allow only 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at the 6.1% tariff rate.

The cap is in response to Canadian automakers’ fears of an influx of affordable Chinese EVs.

As well as relief for canola producers, there will also be reduced tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs, and peas.

I would expect that if the Chinese are willing to manufacture in Canada we’ll give on other things. The limit on autos is to get China to manufacture here. US manufacturers of automobiles are no longer reliable and Stellantis has started to pull out of Canada, there are no major “Canadian” manufacturers, so US manufacturers they must be replaced. The 100% tariff on EVs was to please the US (Trump can’t be pleased), and to protect Canadian jobs. Since those jobs are now at risk and almost certain to be lost, well…

The BBC says this move is in reaction to Trump’s on and off again tariffs, but that’s only half true. I keep noticing this in much of the media, they talk about tariffs and not about the annexation threats and both are a factor. You can’t have your primary trade partner be a nation which wants to invade you or break you up with covert actions and color revolutions. Then, of course, there’s Trump’s comments that the US doesn’t need anything from Canada. OK then, if you don’t need it, guess we’ll have to sell it to someone else, and since that has to go two ways, guess we’ll phase out buying American cars and buy Chinese instead.

This will break the ice for many nations. As I have argued for ages, even before Trump came to office, everyone needs to cut a deal with China because it’s the rising power. It’s already the most powerful nation in the world in many ways, and it will be in all ways that matter in less than ten years. Perhaps five.

But it’s also that you can make a deal with the Chinese. They keep their deals unless you cross very clear red lines like supporting Taiwanese independence. Even before Trump the US did not keep its deals. As a Canadian I’m aware that America just ignored trade rulings against it in favor of Canada even twenty years ago. America is simply untrustworthy, they don’t really believe they have to obey even rules they themselves have agreed to. Trump is “ignore inconvenient rules on steroids” but pretending he hasn’t just ramped up an already existing American characteristic would be delusional.

It’s also worth noting that this is, in the words of commenter Carborundum, “seismic”. Canada has been extremely hostile to China ever since Justin Trudeau was elected, including arresting the Huawei heiress for America, slapping on those 100% tariffs and multiple other incidents. We did this in order to keep America happy, calculating that we needed America more than China. (I never agreed, but I was in the minority). Under Justin Trudeau we were America’s second most faithful lapdog (no one can ever beat the UK when it comes to lick-spittle toadying.)

So this is, if not a 180 degree turn at least a 100 degree turn. Carney said all the usual bullshit about human rights and Hong Kong, but they were pro-forma. They won’t get in the way of a deal, and I suspect that public scoldings and statements along those lines will become much less frequent. The issues will be given a nod when some journalist asks about them and little more.

Canada was the first of America’s lapdogs to make a break for the exit after Trump decided dog was on the menu. We’ll see who goes next. Because when Carney said that this was preparation for the new world order (down, conspiracy types) he was right: the old world order is all but dead, and everyone has to re-orient away from the setting sun of America towards the rising sun, China.

This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.

Yes, Canadians Did—Did Think America Was A Friend & Yes, Trump Is Good For Canada

By

On October 30, 2025

23 Comments

These numbers are astounding:

36 per cent of Canadians currently view the United States as a friend, compared to 60 per cent at the end of 2020 and 89 per cent in 2013, and that 27 per cent of Canadians presently view the U.S. as an enemy, a number that stood at 11 per cent in 2020 and as low as one per cent in 2013.

Notice that 1% figure regarding the US as an enemy in 2013, and 60% viewing it as a friend as late as 2020. When I say I was a lone voice screaming that we couldn’t trust America, I’m not exaggerating by much.

My position was half “America has never been trustworthy to anyone, and it ignores NAFTA rulings and destroyed our aviation industry” and half “countries have interests not friends.”

The moment it wasn’t in America’s perceived interest to be friends, it wouldn’t be, and empires are always implicitly enemies of their vassals, seeing them as useful tools, not friends.

But I want to emphasize how grateful I am to to Trump. If he had played along, given the appearance of friendship while slowly screwing Canada over, the way most recent administrations have, Canada would have gone along with it. If the past 45 years have taught us anything, it should be that people will tolerate a slowly eroding situation for ages, the metaphorical frogs in the slowly heating pot. (Frogs aren’t actually that stupid, not being humans.)

Canada spent the 90s and 00’s making nice with China, then reversed on a dime under US pressure, arresting the daughter of Huawei’s CEO for America and slapping 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs.

Then came Trump with his talk of annexation and his lies about Fentanyl (the same lies being used against Venezuela, you’ll note. Trump is not very imaginative. One lie for all seasons.) The truth is that Canada is exactly the sort of trade partner that America should want: yes we have a surplus, but it’s because we sell oil and minerals to the US. In the far more important manufactured goods area, we’re net importers.

If we were to cut the US off from Canadian crude, multiple refineries would be shuttered and there wouldn’t be enough gasoline. (Ironically, Venezuela is the other big supplier of the sort of heavy crude these refineries are set up to use.) You don’t want it? You don’t have to buy it, it isn’t competing with US crude.

But lately Trump may have gone too far for even Canadian politicians, though to be fair, Canada has been far more resistant to tariff blackmail than almost any other country except China. Japan and the EU buckled far more easily.

Two important events: first Stellantis said it was going to move a factory to the US from Canada. Reshoring industry and all that. Canada and America’s auto industries have been integrated since World War II under the Auto Pact. This is why Canadian politicians were ready to hit China with that 100% EV tariff, they were protecting Canadian jobs since Chinese cars are half the price of American made ones.

Then, in response to Ontario Premier Rob Ford’s ad quoting Reagan as against tariffs, Trump slapped on another 10% tariff on Canadian goods, and stopped all trade talks.

Thank God for Trump. Canadian politicians want to capitulate, if they can get surrender terms that don’t amount to “you won’t be re-elected” and he keeps not letting them.

So word is that the Feds are considering ending the 100% tariff. Presumably the idea is to try for the same sort of deal Mexico got: assembly plants in Canada for Chinese EVs.

If we can’t have American car manufacturing jobs, why not Chinese? Bonus, happy consumers/voters when they can get better cars for half the price.

Trump just keeps giving, just not to anyone who voted for him who isn’t worth 7 figures. Canada should have been pivoting to China hard years ago, and now, thanks to Trump it may well happen.

I just hope that after Trump gets on his knees and begs Xi to let him off the China trade war hook, that he doesn’t let us off the hook and give Canadian pols a way to avoid the pivot.

All praise Trump. He’s a genocidal monster, has the attention span of a dementia patient and betrays anyone stupid enough to trust him who can’t afford to bribe him, but he may just save Canada yet.

We’re near the end of our fundraiser, and now about $1,500 out from our fundraising target. If you read regularly and value the site and have the money to spare, please consider subscribing or donating. Over 10k people read this site every day, and it’s free, but it and Ian do take money to run. Huge thanks to all who have given so far, a number which is now slightly over 100 people.

Oddly, Canada Has More Leverage In A Trade Deal Than Anyone Except Maybe China

By

On July 31, 2025

16 Comments

Trump:

Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!

The current plan is 35% tariffs on everything not covered by the USMCA trade deal.

But here’s the thing: Canada buys more US exports than any other country in the world. In fact, ex-oil, we have a trade deficit with the US.

Canada is the only country other than China that has significantly counter-tariffed the US. One reason why is that Carney wants to build back Canadian industry and to reduce Canadian vulnerability to the American political fits. Since the US is where Canada get its goods, counter-tariffs act as subsidies for manufacturing.

While I tend to think Canada should be making up with China, it’s possible that Prime Minister Carney is keeping the trade relationship sour there to help Canadian manufacturing. After all, Chinese goods are even cheaper than American ones and Canada definitely can’t compete. (No one actually can, more on that later.)

I do find it funny, that Canada, which Americans think of as a “wimp” nation is one of only two countries counter-attacking Trump hard. I mentioned in the past that the idea that Canadian politeness meant weakness was wrong. It’s also very American to think that someone being polite or apologizing when it’s appropriate means they’re a wimp. Very American.

Meanwhile Canadian tourist visits to the US are way down, and US state Governors are squealing, as is Las Vegas.

You tell Canadians you have contempt for them and that you want to take over their country, and strangely enough, they don’t like it.

Maybe China and Canada can bond over their shared enemy. America.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

 

Ending Resource Separatism in Alberta and Canada

By

On July 24, 2025

12 Comments

Alberta is a province in Canada with a lot of oil and a moderate but not yet dangerous separatism problem that polls a little below 30%. That’s far less than needed to win a referendum, but enough to support an insurrection or a large campaign of civil disobedience. It’s also a sufficient level of support for America to take advantage of in one of their patented color revolutions.

Though the level is higher than in the past, it’s nowhere near new. Growing up in the 70s and 80s in British Columbia I remember the anger.

Because there’s a lot of resentment in Alberta and out West in general it also gums up the works politically: the Premier of Alberta has been truculent and unwilling to join in on national efforts to resist Trump’s trade war, for example.

Alberta has oil. Lots of it. Most of it is crap, tar sands oil. It is because of Alberta oil that Canada has a trade surplus with America, in fact, we have a goods and services deficit.

Like all resource rich areas Alberta lives from boom to boom, and the good jobs are in the resource sector. At one time that resource sector was heavily taxed, but that’s far in the past and it is now heavily subsidized. So anything that seems to hurt the resource sector which the Federal government does, like environmental regulations or even renewable energy initiatives is resented. A lot of Albertans identify with oil company interests.

So, this issue needs to be dealt with. Its legs need to be cut out from under it.

The approach which will work is simple enough.

The federal government should either nationalize the oil industry or tax it at high levels when oil prices are high and take the money and just give checks to people in resource rich areas. (Not just Alberta, but also Saskatchewan in particular.)

Put 50% of profits or taxes into a sovereign development fund which invests in new non-resource businesses in resource areas in proportion to the income it receives from them (because resources always run out and one doesn’t want the West to turn into the Maritimes economically), and simply cut checks for the other 50% directly to people who live in the areas.

Make it so that the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and other resource rich areas see the federal government as the one responsible for their prosperity and personal income, not oil barons.

Of course there are more steps which should be taken, but this is the first and fundamental one: reverse the underlying issue.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER
And get new posts emailed to you once a day.

No Spam, just new posts and the rare admin notice. See our  privacy policy..

Elite Opinion In Canada Begins To Shift From America To China

By

On July 16, 2025

24 Comments

The Globe and Mail is one of the two main “newspapers of the elite” in Canada, and the older of the two. (The other one is the Nation Post). So this article is important:

Canada’s “deal” with the U.S. to drop the digital services tax, which benefits U.S. tech giants such as Meta and Netflix at the expense of Canadian fiscal sovereignty, and the Trump administration’s latest threat of a 35-per-cent tariff on Canadian goods perfectly encapsulate our current predicament: Washington no longer views Canada as an ally, but rather as a subordinate from which to extract concessions. It’s a stark reminder that trade diversification is no longer optional – it’s an urgent national imperative.

 

The rub is that our longstanding subordination to the U.S. is also holding us back from partnering with China, one of the world’s most important economies. To achieve economic sovereignty, Canada must break free from the made-in-Washington narrative that China is an unreliable trading partner bent on world domination. Instead, Canada must forge its own relationship with China – a relationship anchored in Canadian, not U.S., interests.

As the largest economy in the world on a purchasing power parity basis, China is set to be a core driver of future global economic growth. It also now accounts for a third of the world’s manufacturing output, more than all the G7 countries plus South Korea and Mexico combined. And not just low-cost manufacturing, but rather advanced production and world-beating technology. China leads in 37 of 44 critical technologies, from AI to green energy.

Everything said above is correct. I’d add that China is not an existential threat to Canada. They have never threatened our sovereignty the way Trump and the US has, and they never will. They cannot conquer us and are not stupid enough to believe they could, we are too large and too far away.

Of course we’ll have to kiss China’s ass if we want to move towards them. We’ve been very hostile for the last decade or so (we were friendly before that, it’s a policy change made by Trudeau).

I can’t see that kissing China’s ass is any more obnoxious than the deep tongue action we’ve been applying to America’s behind since 1984, with only a brief interregnum under Prime Minister Chretien (who used lips only.) In fact, China is likely to demand a lot less: mostly we have to stop discriminating against them economically (we can and should negotiate some carve-outs) and shut up about Taiwan. Given the size of our Navy our opinion on Taiwan is meaningless, and China isn’t going to Gaza the Taiwanese when they finally do unify, so this isn’t a very big concession.

It should be noted that Chinese military equipment appears, overall, to be superior to American and if we really intend to move away from the US, we shouldn’t be using American military gear. (I hope the reasons are obvious.) Moreover, China’s lead in military technology will just continue to grow.

Canada has three main geopolitical problems:

1) How to disentangle ourselves from America without getting invaded or economically crushed; and,

2) how to regrow our manufacturing capacity, so as to not become a 21st century Argentinian-style basket-case.

3) How not to go down with America.

We also have a number of serious domestic issues, a lot of them coming from American cultural, political and economic influence on Canada. Basically, we’re neoliberals, and we need to stop that, but America is dead set against it.

Anyway, America wants to cannibalize its allies to slow its decline and Canada would be stupid to go along, whether or not we fix our domestic issues.

It’s interesting to see that Canada’s elites are beginning to realize the bind. There is zero chance the Globe And Mail article would have been published if there weren’t powerful people in Canada who want the shift.

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Page 1 of 8

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén