You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2025.
April 29, 2025 — Pierre Poilievre campaigned with fire, drawing thousands to rallies, dismantling Trudeau’s legacy, and offering solutions for a Canada strained by inflation, crime, and a shrinking middle class. He should have crushed Mark Carney, the Liberals’ uninspiring banker propped up to preserve their grip on power. Yet, the Liberals clung to a minority government, and the Conservatives, despite a surge, fell just short.
What happened? Two factors: Donald Trump and a persistent gender gap.
The Trump Effect
Trump’s shadow loomed large. His threats of tariffs on Canadian goods and quips about Canada as the 51st state spooked Ontario voters, especially older boomers in auto towns. They prioritized pensions and job security over Poilievre’s vision of freedom and sovereignty. Carney, despite his globalist roots, was sold as the “steady hand” to manage Trump. Fear trumped policy, giving Carney the edge in key ridings.
The Gender Gap
Poilievre struggled with women voters, pulling only 29% support compared to Carney’s 34%, per Nanos polls. In Ontario, the gap widened to seven points. Why? A lingering distrust rooted in Poilievre’s voting record. Despite his clear campaign pledge not to restrict abortion, votes like Motion 312 (reviewing when life begins) and Bill C-233 (banning sex-selective abortion) fueled skepticism. The left framed these as “edging” toward pro-life policies, and the narrative stuck. Media and activists amplified it, drowning out Poilievre’s assurances. For many women, especially liberal-leaning ones, it was enough to vote against him.
The Conservative Surge
Despite the loss, the Conservatives gained 25 seats—a historic leap. The NDP lost 18, the Bloc Québécois dropped 9, and the Liberals scraped by with just 8 new seats. Poilievre’s campaign united the base, won independents, and restored fiscal sanity to the national conversation. But his Carleton riding loss, with 91 candidates on the ballot, reeks of sabotage. [**Clarification: Major Sabotage was most likely not the case in Poilievre’s riding, the ‘protest’ was about electoral form, and had minimal impact. See addendum below.] He was campaigning nationwide, not shoring up his own seat, and it cost him.
Carney’s Play
Carney, the Liberals’ polished fix, wasn’t brought in to innovate but to shield the establishment. Trudeau, battered by Poilievre’s relentless attacks, stepped aside. Carney leveraged Trump fears and his own charisma to stabilize the Liberal brand. He’s no reformer—just a rebrand of the same scandals, taxes, and censorship.
What’s Next?
Poilievre must stay as leader. He gutted Trudeau’s credibility, broke the Liberal-NDP alliance, and delivered a historic seat gain. His Carleton loss is a setback, not a defeat. A safe riding by-election can bring him back, as it did for John A. Macdonald. The Conservatives have momentum, a sharp message, and a public tiring of Liberal promises.
The Liberals face a reckoning. Without NDP cover, scandals will resurface. The Bloc will exploit weaknesses. And with Trump’s tariffs looming, Carney’s globalist loyalties won’t save Canada’s auto sector. Voters may soon see through his polished facade.
The Conservatives must stay aggressive, hold the Liberals accountable, and prepare for the next fight. This isn’t over—it’s just the beginning.
**Clarification –
Claims of “sabotage” in Pierre Poilievre’s Carleton riding during the 2025 federal election, particularly regarding the 91-candidate ballot orchestrated by the Longest Ballot Committee, are inaccurate and overstate the protest’s impact. The Committee’s action, intended to highlight flaws in Canada’s electoral system, created a lengthy ballot that may have caused minor voter confusion or vote fragmentation, but it was not a deliberate attempt to target Poilievre. His loss to Liberal Bruce Fanjoy, who secured 50.6% to Poilievre’s 46.1%, was primarily driven by Fanjoy’s robust local campaign, a Liberal surge under Mark Carney’s leadership in nearby Nepean, and Poilievre’s failure to counter Carney’s anti-Trump messaging. While the protest ballot added logistical complexity, calling it sabotage misrepresents its intent and exaggerates its role in the outcome.
My prompt: “Explain this meme in terms of individuals who were once told that Canada is a genocidal post national state versus now which we come together as proud patriots fighting the bad orange man down south.”
(From Grok AI):This meme uses a three-panel comic to satirize a shift in perception about Canada, particularly in the context of political and cultural narratives.
First Panel: A gray, angry-looking character (often representing a stereotypical “NPC” or someone who follows narratives without questioning) is being approached by a red hand, which typically symbolizes an external force or influence (like media, propaganda, or societal pressure).
Second Panel: The red hand holds a microchip with a Canadian maple leaf crossed out, labeled “NO CANADA,” and inserts it into a slot on the character’s head (implying brainwashing or reprogramming). The background shows a circuit board, reinforcing the idea of manipulation or control. The sound effect “click” indicates the chip being installed, symbolizing the character being fed a narrative. This reflects the idea of individuals being told that Canada is a “genocidal post-national state”—a critical perspective often rooted in discussions about historical issues like the treatment of Indigenous peoples or debates about Canada’s identity under leaders like Justin Trudeau, who once described Canada as a “post-national” state.
Third Panel: The character reappears with the same angry expression, now presumably “reprogrammed.” This suggests that the narrative has taken hold, but the meme doesn’t explicitly show the shift to “proud patriots.” However, based on your description, the implication is that the character (representing Canadians) has now been reprogrammed again to reject the earlier critical view of Canada. Instead, they unite as “proud patriots” to oppose the “bad orange man down south”—a clear reference to Donald Trump, often associated with the color orange due to his complexion and polarizing political presence in the U.S.
Explanation in Context: The meme mocks the idea of Canadians being easily swayed by competing narratives. First, they’re told Canada is a “genocidal post-national state” (a critique possibly tied to progressive or anti-establishment views). Later, they’re reprogrammed to become “proud patriots” who rally against a common enemy—Trump—reflecting a nationalist resurgence, possibly in response to external threats or cultural shifts. It highlights the perceived hypocrisy or flip-flopping of public sentiment, driven by external influences rather than genuine belief.
The violence at The Women Will Speak Rally in Melbourne, Australia, where trans rights activists disrupted a discussion on women’s rights, is a direct consequence of woke ideology, which has morphed from a call for social justice into a dogmatic force eroding female rights, boundaries, and safety. Originally rooted in awareness of marginalization, woke has been hijacked by activists who demand ideological conformity, often at the expense of open dialogue. At the rally, protesters, fueled by this warped woke ethos, resorted to intimidation and physical aggression to silence women raising concerns about gender policies, exposing how the movement’s fixation on equity can breed hostility toward women defending their spaces.
This woke-driven activism undermines female rights by dismissing their boundaries under the banner of inclusivity, threatening women’s safety and autonomy. The Women Will Speak Rally aimed to address critical issues like single-sex spaces and fair sports policies, but protesters, emboldened by woke narratives that brand dissent as bigotry, violently disrupted it. This reflects a wider trend where woke ideology fuels a zero-sum conflict, pitting trans rights against women’s protections. The result is a toxic environment where women face harassment or censorship for asserting their rights, while woke’s veneer of kindness obscures the damage to their safety and agency.
The link is unmistakable: woke ideology, despite its compassionate facade, mobilized the protests that harmed women at the Melbourne rally by suppressing their voices and disregarding their boundaries. Those who view woke as solely about kindness and equity overlook its destructive side—empowering extremism that justifies violence to enforce compliance. The violence at The Women Will Speak Rally was not an outlier but a symptom of woke’s failure to balance empathy with respect for women’s rights. Condemning this requires recognizing how woke activism, when unchecked, sacrifices female safety for ideological purity, betraying its own ideals.
Having beliefs in unfalsifiable ooga-booga is all well and fine, until you have to start dealing with reality.
Fascism is a tough term to pin down, but history gives us a clear picture. It’s a far-right ideology that took root in the early 20th century, most famously in Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. At its core, fascism is about extreme control: one leader or party calls the shots, the state trumps individual rights, and nationalism gets dialed up to eleven. Think Mussolini strutting as “Il Duce” or the Nazis’ obsession with racial purity. It’s anti-democratic, often crushing free elections, free press, and anyone who dares disagree. Look at Italy’s march into Ethiopia in 1935 or Germany’s defiance of the Treaty of Versailles with its military buildup—fascism loves a crisis to justify power grabs and feeds on myths of national glory.
Spotting fascism today isn’t about slapping the label on every tough government. It’s about looking for specific signs. First, does a regime gut checks and balances, like attacking courts or silencing journalists? Hungary’s media crackdowns under Orbán raise eyebrows here. Second, is there a toxic “us vs. them” vibe, like far-right parties in Europe demonizing immigrants? Third, are critics jailed or worse, as in Putin’s Russia with its vanishing opposition? Fourth, does a leader act like a king, demanding loyalty above all, like Kim Jong-un in North Korea? Fifth, is the military or police state overblown, like China’s surveillance net? These aren’t just “bad government” traits—they’re a pattern of ideological control that echoes history’s darkest regimes.
Calling everything “fascist” is a trap too many progressives fall into, and it’s a disservice to everyone. Disagree with a tax cut or a border policy? Fine, but throwing around “fascism” like it’s a catch-all insult cheapens the word. It’s not just sloppy thinking—it muddies the water, making it harder to call out real threats. The term should evoke the Gestapo, the Blackshirts, or the death camps, not a policy you’d vote against. This habit shuts down debate, alienates people who might actually listen, and disrespects the millions who suffered under true fascist boots. We need to argue with facts and clarity, not fling around history’s heaviest labels like they’re confetti.
Anton Bruckner’s “Locus Iste” is a sacred motet for unaccompanied SATB choir, composed in 1869 for the dedication of the Votivkapelle in Linz, Austria. The Latin text, drawn from the Gradual for church dedications, translates to “This place was made by God, a priceless mystery; it is without reproof.”
The piece is concise (around 2-3 minutes) and showcases Bruckner’s signature style: rich, warm harmonies, smooth polyphonic textures, and a sense of reverent grandeur. It unfolds in a serene, flowing manner, with dynamic swells and subtle chromatic shifts that create a mystical, uplifting atmosphere. The motet’s structure is simple yet profound, reflecting the text’s theme of a sacred, inviolable space. It’s a staple in choral repertoire for its emotional depth and spiritual resonance, much like Rheinberger’s Abendlied.
Locus iste a Deo factus est, inaestimabile sacramentum, irreprehensibilis est.
This place was made by God, a priceless mystery; it is without reproof.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…