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