
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.




10 comments
April 29, 2025 at 5:44 am
Carmen
Bottom line? The best man won.
Hopefully there will be a Leadership Review and Poilievre will get a real job. Enough American-style politics, thanks. :(
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 6:46 am
The Arbourist
@Carmen
With the decimation of the NDP and Green party I predict there will be a resurgence of “american style” politics with two parties dominating the national conversation. American politics is dominated by style over substance – Eastern Canada has just demonstrated Trump Derangement Syndrome on a massive scale – voting accordingly out of fear and ‘orange man bad’vibes.
“American style” politics – the meme demonstrated here – is here to stay in Canada. Inaccurate partisan narratives for consumption of the masses will remain firmly intact.
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 7:08 am
Sumi
Resorting to the “derangement syndrome” trope is a way of calling someone insane to avoid addressing their argument. In fact, the Conservatives picked up seats in both the Maritimes and Ontario, putting the lie to idea that Eastern Canada voted out of fear of Conservatives.
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 8:24 am
Carmen
As far as I am concerned, “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is more a name for MAGAs. Since I am part of the only seat that remained Conservative (and he’s a great guy; he just poured tea at our breakfast last weekend – I know him) I take that as a personal insult.
I think the reason Carney went in is – in part – because many of us reject American-style politics and don’t see it as the Canadian way. Arlene Dickinson echoes many of my views. She’s been passionate about the topic and is well respected. Like I said, the best thing that will happen is a leadership review in the Conservative Party – PP needs to go.
I figure that in our riding, we got a great outcome — we have a Conservative who does a great job as our MP and PP won’t be Prime Minister.
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 9:07 am
The Arbourist
@Carmen
I agree that rejecting polarizing, “American-style” politics is crucial for Canada’s discourse. However, the path forward lies in seeking truth and exposing narratives across all political stripes, not just targeting one side. Robust debates, grounded in evidence and aimed at uncovering reality, are the only way to move beyond division and toward a more unified, principled political polity.
Our riding is one of the few NDP seats left in Canada. They remained in control of the seat only because our riding contains the UofA and all of the activist politics that go along with the University crowd. Not particularly surprised, but I hope that the seat will change hands soon and shake up the political scene.
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 9:13 am
The Arbourist
I appreciate your perspective, but I’d like to offer a counterpoint. While it’s true that dismissing arguments with terms like “derangement syndrome” can oversimplify complex motivations, the Conservative seat gains in the Maritimes and Ontario don’t necessarily disprove the idea that fear of Conservatives influenced Eastern Canada’s voting. The graph you provided shows that for the 60+ age group, “Dealing with Donald Trump” was the top concern (around 50%), which could reflect broader anxieties about stability or international relations—issues often associated with Conservative platforms, especially given their historical alignment with U.S. Republican policies. For younger voters, economic priorities like reducing the cost of living dominate, but fear of Conservative social policies or governance style might still play a role, even if it’s not captured directly in the data. The seat gains could also reflect strategic voting or dissatisfaction with other parties rather than a rejection of fear-based narratives. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on how these factors might interplay with the election results.
**The image embed didn’t work – Here is a link to the graph I referenced from X – https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1917219110158557266/photo/1
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 9:33 am
Carmen
Arb, you might want to read John Pavlovitz’s article: “Canada is Great – and Trump has Nothing to do with it”, for another perspective.
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 9:51 am
The Arbourist
@ Carmen
Deal – but only if you read Rupa Subramanya’s in the Free Press take on the election results. We’ll compare notes?
LikeLike
April 29, 2025 at 3:30 pm
Carmen
Hi Arb, I really like her take on things. She’s uber sensible and uses facts – no hyperbole or personal bias in her writing.
I have to admit that I just don’t get this attitude in the West. I’ve seen many comments on FB from men my age who went out there in the early 80’s and are very successful financially (with only a high school education) and I just don’t get their anger. But I agree, Carney is going to have his hands full with that problem.
She identifies PP’s underlying dilemma and I believe it to be true. He didn’t dare piss off the maple MAGA’s in his base – and they seem to make up a large part of his support.
All in all, I thought she was bang on in her assessment of the situation. Smart lady, is she. :)
LikeLike
April 30, 2025 at 12:45 am
The Arbourist
@Carmen
I thought thatPavlovitz’s essay poignantly contrasts Canada’s informed electoral rejection of divisive politics with America’s failure to do the same, and I found some parts of his critique compelling. His point that Canadian voters, spurred by Trump’s trade wars and annexation rhetoric, displayed maturity in their choice resonates strongly. Additionally, Pavlovitz’s argument that American voters’ laziness and purity politics allowed a felon’s return to power is a sharp, sobering reflection that highlights the essay’s impactful call for self-examination.
LikeLike