"Make Canada the freest country on earth"

That was Pierre Poilievre's promise if he became Prime Minister. And then he lost. And, as a consequence, we all did. This past election was the only time in my entire life that I voted 'for' a candidate, as opposed to 'against' the other one. Would Poilievre have been the greatest liberator ever? No, Javier Milei has raised the bar way too high. But Poilievre would have made a big difference. Enough to make our lives substantially better. Of course, it wouldn't have been him the one to raise our standard of living, but each and every Canadian in their own way, small or big, freed from government impositions, restrictions and regulations driven by political machinations at which the Liberals are absolute masters. But it's ok. We'll just have more of the same for the next four years. Maybe slightly better because Carney, as opposed to Trudeau, seems to know what he's doing. The Trump effect is still going to make it worse for us, but that can't be blamed on our Prime Minister regardless of who that is.

Poilievre's mistake was that he thought Freedom actually meant something to the Canadian citizen. It doesn't. What Canadians want is a better leader. A benevolent leader who knows how to steer the various segments of society so that they interact harmoniously, in a fair way, so that we all gain. They want a wise central planner who knows what 'fair' is, what the correct prices should be, how much we should borrow at the expense of our future generations, whether we should build roads, or housing or pipelines. The same He, We, Our - the terms in which any collectivist thinks. The idea of there being no leader sounds bizarre to most Canadians. Freedom is indeed a relatively new idea, and is poorly defined. As Yaron Brook says, did Braveheart really want freedom? No, he wanted a Scottish King instead of the English one. He would have laughed at a peasant's timid suggestion of no King. "You want anarchy??" Braveheart would have lashed out with a sneer.

It is even more incomprehensible when it comes to immigrants. Some have come here to escape oppressive regimes, others simply for a better life. Most for both. But none seems to grasp the obvious fact that the first causes the second. They believe life here is better than there only because the leaders here are most just, more fair, smarter, less corrupt, while Freedom remains an abstraction, with no practical meaning. Choosing Carney over Poilievre is their desire to get away with the contradiction, and live better with less freedom.

The reality is that the standard of living is directly proportional with the degree of individual freedom. To see that we just have to look around the world and throughout history. The evidence is there, before our eyes. But to look requires effort. No time for that now. Now we have tariffs to worry about. And then inflation. And then recession. And then health care, and then student loans, and environment, and immigration. And so on. We'll look when all these issues are behind us. Until then, we just need to find the wise leaders who will solve them.

PS. Maybe the Liberals will oppress (younger) Canadians slightly more, just enough so that retired Canadians get government-provided dental care. If not Freedom, at least free fillings.

Trump will fail, like all socialist movements have.

All socialist^ attempts have failed*, or are in the process of failing, whether it's Soviet Russia, Maoist China or Maduro's Venezuela. Argentina was heading in the same direction, but Milei is saving it.

From that, it could be implied that the  policies of the Trump administration, being anything but socialist, will soon prove to be a total and complete success.

No, it won't. Quite the opposite. And that's not because the tariff retaliation of other nations, China's influence on third world markets, Jewish Cabal, out of control AI, or greedy corporate magnates. But for the same cause which inherently dooms socialism to failure: Lack of Individual Freedom. And Trump's policies are even farther from Liberty than they are from socialism. The tariffs are only an infringement of economic liberties, the tip of the iceberg, being easy to see, follow, analize and ultimately gaze and marvel at the devastation in their wake. The real destruction, however, comes from the political realm, the administration's disrespect, disregard and downright violation of individual rights. That's what will lead to political uncertainty, then economic uncertainty, then lack of investments, massive unemployment, distrust in the currency, the development of the black market, the unstoppable corruption in the Central government, and all the horrific effects seen in socialist countries. It doesn't matter whether the violation comes from a malevolent dictator, a sadistic King, a well-meaning authoritarian or from an anti-woke, not fully developed fetus. The consequences are the same.

^"Socialist" means a massive concentration of the society's means of production in the hands of the State.

*"Failure", from an economic standpoint, means a much lower standard of living for its citizens as compared to other societies around the world.

The Great Reset is finally here

Democrats, liberals, ecologists, socialists, communists, wokes, all the leftists embodied by the Davos elite, were working together on plans to achieve their Great Reset. It would have taken them decades, but with a lot of hard work, a few annoying acts from Green Peace and tomato soup museum vandals, they would have gotten it.

Hitler was slightly more efficient. He got his Great Reset in a few years, but he had to murder hundreds of his communist opponents.

Donald Trump is achieving his own Great Reset in just a few months, with virtually no violence. A record of efficiency, that should have been expected. Technology and the internet have made spreading stupidity a virtually effortless endeavor.

The lessons of "Adolescence"

I've just finished watching "Adolescence". An excellent mini-series, one of the best I've ever seen. Writing, directing and acting are all above Oscar grade. This is exactly the type of movies "they don't make as they used to". I'm grateful they still do.

Warning! Spoilers below!

But this is not about the movie. It's about the British Prime Minister's decision to back an initiative by Netflix "to stream the drama series for free to secondary schools across the country, so that as many teens as possible can watch it." Why? Because this will “help students better understand the impact of misogyny, dangers of online radicalization and the importance of healthy relationships."

I couldn't help noticing that the movie itself criticizes the fact that schools show movies in class as means of teaching. Showing this movie in schools will have exactly the same impact: None! It will only make students more anxious and scared, and leave them even more confused. What today's adolescents need is guidance. And "Adolescence" does not provide it. Adolescents will not "understand" the impact of misogyny, they will only see it and feel it at a very basic emotional level. Many will probably refrain from practicing it, but only because of the perceived impact, not because they understand it's wrong. For that, they need to be provided with a proper, life affirming moral standard of good and bad, which only a proper, life affirming morality can do. Absent that, adolescents are left with a dogmatic "Thou shalt not misogynize", but clueless about "burglarize", "racisize" or "nationalize". Adolescents need to be taught a clear moral standard based on which to choose their values and then evaluate their own actions on their way towards achieving them. A long list of DON'T-s provides no guidance whatever. They need to be guided on what to DO.

The producers of the movie made it "to provoke a conversation." God, please no! Millions of more conversations are just going to add to the noise of the trillions of conversations currently taking place. In today's moral vacuum, conversations lead nowhere. "We hope it’ll lead to teachers talking to the students, but what we really hope is it’ll lead to students talking amongst themselves" Brrrr!!! Noo! We need teachers to first learn the objective moral standard. And then teach it, not discuss it.