, 11.20.2018 08:48 AM

How Andrew Scheer can win the next election. You’re welcome.

AN OPEN LETTER TO ANDREW SCHEER, CONTAINING SUPER-USEFUL FREE ADVICE ABOUT HOW TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION

Dear Andrew:

First off, well done.

You handled the Tony Clement scandal way better than Justin Trudeau handled the Kent Hehr scandal: (a) you moved quickly, (b) you were umambiguous, and (c) you kicked the wrongdoer right out of your caucus.  In Hehr’s case, Trudeau didn’t do any of those things.  So, kudos.

Opposition can be Hell, but you are mostly doing well.  Mad Max Bernier sounds madder by the day, and gives every indication that he is running for office in Austro-Hungary in the 1920s, not multicultural Canada in the 2010s.  You continue to out-fundraise the Liberal Party – a sitting majority government, for those who haven’t noticed – and have been doing so for many months.  You are running ads during hockey games to get better-known, and (as such ads go) you are getting a bit better-known.

But you still aren’t popular.  You still aren’t winning.

Nanos’ latest weekly poll indicates that you are a whopping 11 points behind the Trudeau Party – and that the New Democrats, who you desperately need to do better, continue to languish under the byzantine leadership of Jagmeet Singh.  If an election were held today, the Grits would win a bigger majority than they did in 2015.

Equally, Nanos found that more than twice as many Canadians (42 per cent) prefer Justin Trudeau to you (20 per cent) on this question: “Of the current federal political party leaders, could you please rank your top two current local preferences for Prime Minister?”

It’s not just Nanos.  Mainstreet’s Quito Maggi said this week that “a massive Liberal Party majority is in the making.”  His firm found that Trudeau dominates in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada – with a double-digit lead in the last three places.  Which means lots and lots of seats.

So what do you do?

Well, for starters, consider Kinsella’s Rule of Political Opposites.  Your salvation lies therein.

Politics, like physics, is all about action and reaction.  It’s the third Newtonian law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You shouldn’t ever replicate what your opponent does; you should be reacting to it. Near the end of his tenure, then, Stephen Harper came to be seen as a sullen, angry guy who didn’t like people much. So the NDP picked a sullen, angry guy who didn’t like people so much. The Liberals picked a happy, upbeat guy who hugged everyone. Guess who picked right?

Exactly. React, don’t replicate.

Cast an eye over recent political history, if you don’t believe me.  Ronald Reagan’s sunny Morning In America stuff was the precise-right reaction to the dour, defeatist Jimmy Carter administration, mired as it was in energy and hostage crises.  Bill Clinton’s campaign trifecta – keep it simple, it’s all about the economy and a town called Hope – were the polar opposite of George H. W. Bush’s impenetrable blathering about distant points of light. Brian Mulroney’s Irish blarney and small-town charm was the right response to the effete intellectualism and elitism of Pierre Trudeau.  Jean Chretien (with his experience, his plan, and his team) was the perfect response to Kim Campbell (who lacked experience, a plan, and a team).

Thus, cast an eye over your opponents, Mr. Scheer.  All three of them – Messrs. Trudeau, Bernier and Singh – share certain characteristics.

They are all stylish and debonair.  You, to put a fine point on it, are not.

They are all charismatic and magnetic.  You aren’t.

They are all Starbucks and Holt Renfrew.  You are Tim Horton’s and Giant Tiger.

What does that all mean? It means, Mr. Scheer, that you need to do what I have long suspected you are going to do anyway –embrace your inner nerd.  Celebrate your lack of charisma.  Wear jackets from Moore’s, and jeans from Old Navy.  Do what Stephen Harper did so successfully before you: become the Tim’s-loving, hockey Dad Everyman.  It worked.

There’s another Canada, as you well know, one that is South of the Queensway and North of Steeles. This is the Canada – a significantly larger and more powerful Canada – in which Stephen Harper (like Jean Chretien before him) was for a decade the favourite.

Chretien and Harper understood the other Canada, because they came from it, and because they never forgot it, and because they embraced it. In 2005, accordingly, I wrote that the ballot question would be Starbucks versus Tim Horton’s. Amazingly, a decade-and-a-half later, it still is. Chretien and Harper represent the latter constituency – and Messrs. Trudeau, Singh and Bernier all represent the first one.

You will never be them, sir.  I don’t believe you even want to be them.

So, do the one thing that always works in politics: be you.

If voters go looking for Justin Trudeau’s opposite, they won’t be putting an X beside the parties led by Jagmeet Singh or Maxime Bernier.

They’ll be looking to for the Everyman.  Which, in 2019, is only you.

There you go.  That’s how you win. You’re welcome.  Invoice is in the mail.

Sincerely,

Etc.

66 Comments

  1. Matt says:

    Mainstreet polling has Bernier losing his own riding to the CPC candidate if an election were held today.

    It also shows Jagmeet Singh in third in Burnaby South behind the Libs and CPC. It should be noted neither the LPC or CPC have named a candidate to run against Singh yet.

  2. Robert White says:

    Bo-Blandy Scheer has the charisma of a faceless nerd in the crowd, and prospects of beating Trudeau that parallel Harpy’s last stand in Parliament. Bo-Blandy has no plan of action due to being a man of inaction and just a faceless nerd in the crowd.

    Bo-Blandy Scheer needs a workable plan of action aside from the old angry white guy head trip that guys like Jason Kenny get elected on. Bo-Blandy needs to grow a brain too because Alberta Crude price is past correction territory and the HarpyCONs can’t expect profit by shipping raw materials as a give away freebie to the ever parasitic United States of America that laughs in our face every day whilst getting FREE Electricity & FREE Alberta Crude.

    Bo-Blandy Scheer needs to offer up resolve for Alberta Crude by insisting upon an in situ Alberta refinery to ameliorate that conundrum and stop the hemorrhaging of Canadian taxpayer dollars.

    Bo-Blandy also needs to realize that Conservativism has metastasized into Proto-Fascism and that ‘ordinary’ Canadians [thanks Mulroney] don’t want any part of the conservative irrationalism that emanates out of the Whore House twitter feed on a daily basis.

    Canadians want a centrist politician that is trusted by Canadians and is considered to be like family to most in the population.

    Trudeau is trusted by all Canadians, Bo-Blandy.

    Conservatives have no reasonable chance of beating Trudeau in the next election given that they are a divided party of highly irrational players that have failed Canadians en masse on Alberta Crude, Vision for CANADA, #METOO, RCMP Sexual Harassment Class Action, Trade Deals with NAFTA2, et cetera.

    The Canadian economy will ensure that the Conservative Party of CANADA is viewed from a lens of economic instability due to the HarpyCON’s track record for investing the lion’s share of Canadian investment into financial loss for Canadians via margin debt & leverage on Oil Sands development.

    Bo-Blandy Scheer will NOT want to address the loss pre-election due to the fact that Harpy himself put all of our eggs into the oil basket for loss in the billions if not trillions when all is said and done.

    RW

    • Canada Joe says:

      The Liberals are free to run a lying sexual harasser as their public face if they want to. Personally, I don’t cast my votes sexual harassers.

    • Jim says:

      Honestly, dude, stop being such a try-hard. You undermine pretty much every point you’re trying to make with the lame nicknames and attempts to speak for “Canadians”.

      You don’t speak for Canadians any more than the moron right-wingers who think the Trudeau is the anti-Christ.

      Tribalism is killing political discourse in this country.

  3. the salamander horde says:

    .. If Matt is right re Burnaby South one suspects the NDP will continue to flounder in nowhereville

    And if Bernier remains a bizarre flash in the pan, his camp following may still trash some aspects of the Harper Rump ReformaTory dregs of Scheer.

    But here’s what might float Blandy’s Ever Rebranding Evangel Following.. Its the ever dangerous and devious Catholic powerhouse faction & alt right marching band

    https://t.co/lU68qpOj5v?ssr=true

    • Matt says:

      BUT…..

      If Bernier attracts the more undesirable minority of “Conservative” voters – the Faith Goldy, Proud Boy types, it COULD make the CPC less “scary” to undecideds or blue Liberals not happy with Trudeau.

  4. Gord Tulk says:

    Most Canadians still couldn’t pick scheer out of a police line-up. That will change between now and the election.

    Two factors that will determine a CPC victory:

    1. The GTA real estate market (and thus the health of the economy in general)

    2. whether the NDP can get off the mat either with their current leader or another one – they need to be around 20% for a CPC majority to happen.

  5. Well, Michael was definitely himself and…

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Michael Ignatieff actually in many ways was like Stephen Harper, both intellectuals but had trouble connecting to people on a personal level as opposed to Trudeau who does connect well with people. Also I think timing is a bigger issue. If people are happy with the Trudeau government, not much Scheer can do, if upset enough then he will win. At this point I think the Tories winning outright is a real long shot. Cutting the Liberals down to a minority is probably more realistic although I could easily see them winning another majority too.

      • The Doctor says:

        I also think for a lot of Canadians, the Tories are still in the penalty box because of Harper. Similar to what happened post-Mulroney. I think 2019 in that sense will be almost a gimme for the Liberals. JT would have to epically shit the bed to lose.

        • Walter says:

          Harper produced the highest GDP growth, highest employment growth, and lowest increase in debt in the G7.

          What is the appropriate punishment for that?

          • Robert White says:

            Banishment from Parliament and lifelong obscurity in Alberta with no supper or tv for a week. And if any statues were crafted in his likeness they must come down off public perch and be warehoused indefinitely.

            No good deeds go unpunished!

            RW

          • The Doctor says:

            Whether Harper deserves punishment or not is irrelevant. What matters is that a fair slice of the Canadian electorate thought that he and his party did. That’s often the way things go when as a government you’ve been in power for a couple of terms and you have steadily continued to accumulate enemies. It’s like that scene near the end of Polanski’s version of Macbeth, when he looks out from his castle and sees that everyone that he has pissed off has come to exact their revenge.

  6. Christian says:

    Scheer thinks Brexit is a GREAT idea (despite the unfolding shit-show now going on over in the UK). Not what we need.

    • Christian,

      My big problem with it has always been what will they gain and what will they lose upon exiting?

      Sure, they rid themselves of a stifling bureaucracy in Brussels but as inter-European trade likely takes a hit, what will happen to the UK’s GDP?

      Might be temporary, might not. But I’m no economist.

    • The Doctor says:

      Being pro-Brexit has become a sort of near-doctrinaire thing among a certain breed of conservatives (and I say that as somebody who is quite Tory sympathetic). It’s tough for me to gauge whether someone like Scheer is adopting that position because he really believes it, because he thinks he’s required to believe it, because he thinks there’s political hay to be made in believing it, or because he thinks that being a conservative today requires you to adopt a certain nationalist hostility to multilateral institutions.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      It’s a Shite show because May is gutless- ran terrible snap election that cost her political force to drive a hard exit.

      The idea is a very sound one. Brexit it the first step towards saving Europe.

      • The Doctor says:

        I see. So you have a magic crystal ball that tells you exactly what would have happened if May hadn’t called that election and if the UK had gone full-bore for a hard exit. That’s quite a gift that you have.

        Fact is, the whole problem with the Brexit referendum is that at the end of the day, pro-Brexiteers were voting for something over which they ultimately could not control. It was like the 1982 and 1995 Quebec referendums in that respect. All you were really voting for was a mandate to negotiate something. And of course the rabidly pro-Brexiteers insist that it would all be dead easy and that they would get their preferred wet dream outcome in any negotiation with the EU. Which is a steaming pile of BS.

        • Gord Tulk says:

          It would have been an arrangement similar to what Norway has. Not much different than what Canada has with the USMCA.

          The weakened minority means that she has to kowtow to a Northern Ireland party that does not want a monitored border with the Republic. Had May had a majority she would be able to have border controls put in place on the Irish Isle.

          The EU knows this and is playing a far harder game than they would otherwise.

          None of the above is “magic crystal ball”. It has all been discussed by many others…

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Actually Norway is a member of the single market although not EU. That means they still must pay fees although not quite as high, asides from agriculture and fisheries which are exempt, most follow EU law with no voice and they must allow free mobility of labour too. I somehow doubt the Brits would want that option. It’s basically being a defacto member with no say at the table. Not saying UK cannot leave and survive outside, but the Norway option likely wouldn’t go over well with either side.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:

            Gord,

            From what I hear, both a plurality, if not a majority, in the Republic and in Northern Ireland are dead set against a Customized border. Have I got that right?

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Yes Norway is a member on trade (including labour )but it also controls its borders and immigration. That is precisely what Britain wants.

            And yes the border In Ireland is an issue – but Not insurmountable- especially if the conservatives had a free hand – weren’t dependent on an Irish party fir support.

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Gord Tulk – Norway has the same amount of control on immigration as UK has as an EU member. Norway unlike UK is part of the Scheghen agreement so does not have border controls with the rest of Europe whereas the only country you can enter UK from without going through passport control is Ireland. EU does not have an immigration policy, instead that is up to each member to decide although they do cooperate on refugees and for the Scheghen Agreement the rule states whatever country refugees arrive in first they must declare there, no asylum shopping. The only rule on immigration for the EU, is all EU nationals must have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU, but rules for non-EU nationals unless a spouse or dependent of an EU national are left to individual member states.

  7. Steve T says:

    Here is what Scheer could say that would resonate with most Canadians:

    1. We need pipelines, or our economy is toast. Run ads with the faces of the thousands of everyday hard-working Canadians who have lost their jobs due to the Liberals’ dithering on the pipeline file, and cow-towing to special interest environmental groups. Tell Canadians that this crap will stop, pronto, and the pipelines will get built, period.

    2. Be clear that you don’t like Trump, or his ilk. This will accomplish two things: you’ll put some philosophical distance between yourself and Bernier, and you will make it clear that Canadian conservatism is nothing like the revolting conservatism of the U.S..

    3. Espouse truly fiscal conservatism. Don’t just promise tax cuts; note how you will trim bloated public spending as well. Believe me, many people want to see and hear that. Resist the urge to promise more spending in pet projects, which often results in Conservatives being no more fiscally conservative than Liberals. Trudeau is vulnerable in this area.

    • Robert White says:

      Pipelines are anathema to Thermodynamic Efficiency, and as one that was raised by a Chartered Accountant that worked Senior Rulings Oil, Mines, & Resource Taxation National Revenue CANADA for 35 years I, for one, can assure all that we are merely giving away Alberta Crude to the United States of America. Furthermore, we spill water on Hydro-Generation in the summer months and we give all the unused electricity on our grid to the USA for FREE.

      Pipelines are in no way efficient and they are actually counterproductive for profit. Americans want us to build more pipelines because we cannot charge premium prices for our Alberta Crude if it is shipped & piped as raw material.

      The only way to make profit from Alberta Crude is to strictly follow Engineering Thermodynamics proper. Thermodynamic Efficiency is understood industry wide and every analyst knows that pipelines are thermodynamically inefficient. Day Traders control the spot price of Alberta Crude and they intuitively understand Finance Thermodynamics to the degree that they know pipelines are NOT profitable.

      Alberta & National Revenue CANADA need to engineer profit mathematically. The only way to make profit on Alberta Crude is via an in situ Alberta refinery due to the fact that thermodynamic energy is spent on pumping the raw materials & shipping raw materials through the infrastructure which ends up bottlenecked & sclerotic due to inefficiency.

      Alberta refinery or Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but we cannot keep giving Alberta Crude away for free.

      Your love does not pay my bills. I want money, that’s what I want.

      RW

      • Steve T says:

        Not exactly following. Surely you aren’t suggesting that everyone in the industry who is advocating for pipelines is part of some massive conspiracy to give away our resources for free?

        I’m also a bit suspect of any post that contains random capitalization and cites scientific principles out of context. But I’m trying to be kind…

        • Robert White says:

          Pipelines sound great when radio announcers tell us how great they are but when one looks deeper into the microeconomics of actually trading oil via raw materials with expectation of profit downstream you are looking at hedged betting on processing.
          When one is looking at hedged betting with speculative investment in the BIG oil industry one is looking at betting on margin and leveraged investment. When leveraged investment goes sideways people get hurt very badly.

          Losing estimated $100 million per day is assurance that someone made unwise leveraged bets on margin during their blue sky fantasy mark-to-market estimation of profit
          somewhere down the line at the planning stage of either incompetence or collusion.

          I prefer to think that Corporatists collude rather than to think that they are merely benevolent & stupid.

          Freud always said that ‘there are no accidents’.

          ‘Follow the money & motive’ Hunter S. Thompson.

          RW

        • doconnor says:

          I think they want to have the oil refined in cheaper countries rather paying Albertans a living wage to do it.

          • Robert White says:

            China & India want our Alberta Crude because it is cheap fuel and they have extremely low labour costs but it only makes sense to move feedstock through pipelines if we are getting premium price like we were when oil was at peak during the HarpyCON governance. Today, we are all on the wrong side of the HarpyCON leveraged bets.

            Paying for the high labour costs in CANADA is justifiable if we refine here because we can garner premium price for value added finished product.

            Harpy was cut from the exact same cloth as Richard ‘the Gorilla of Wall Street’ Fuld. Both erroneously thought that markets only go up.

            This CANADA’s Lehman Moment!

            RW

    • doconnor says:

      I wish the environmental groups weren’t so obsessed with pipelines, but the fact is: If oil usage goes down, as it must, tar sands oil will be the first to be turned off because it is the most expensive to produce.

      • The Doctor says:

        I agree the focus on pipelines is, logically speaking, odd. If environmentalists were truly principled, they’d be blocking bridges and highways and car dealerships and gas stations. But of course THAT would be politically unpopular.

        • Steve T says:

          Exactly. Obstructing pipeline construction does nothing for the environment. It just hampers Canada’s economy, and supports regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But as you say, it gets lots of news attention because it seems so tree-huggy.

          • Fred from BC says:

            And better still, it forces the oil producers to ship by rail (hey, what could possibly go wrong there, right?). They just don’t get it. The world still runs on oil, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Yeah, sure, that’s *slowly* changing…but oil production will still be a necessity for years, like it or not.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Not true. SAGD is now getting oil to the surface for about $10/bbl in some cases (Along the AB/SK border for example). Commoditization, better, more standardized techniques and better understandings of the formations via 3d seismic and Big Data are dramatically reducing the cost on an almost monthly basis and will continue to do so.

        As for Robert White’s comment above, I have no clue what he’s talking about and I suspect neither does he.

        Oilsands will in time be the bellweather in the world oil price (the saudis already tacitly have admitted this.

        Between SAGD and Frack Oil production has become the new coal in terms of how it is done – no more wildcatting except for huge offshore plays – we know where the reserves are and how to get them out. It is now a cost of production game not a gamble. Oil and Gas costs have stabilized within much lower price bans and will remain there for – not decades but -centuries. The reserves are huge. (and look for a resurgence in coal as new anerobic chemical looping processes produce energy from coal with ZERO emissions).

    • Doug Brown says:

      How about an ad showing how much Koch Oil’s Pine Bend refinery makes per second off the WCS differential. Or Trudeau shrugging off the issue of the day because he had prior dinner plans with Elton John or some other celebrity. The key is to show Trudeau as out of touch with real people and the real economy.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Steve T,

      The CPC talks a good game but is also vulnerable on the oil sands issue. Harper wasn’t exactly wild about oil sands when it came to more upgrading and refining in Canada. Very little is done here. Sarnia does come to mind.

      But the national interest does not mean catering to refineries in Port Arthur and Nederland. Value-added should happen in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada, certainly not in Texas.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Refining isn’t where the money is – extraction is. There is far more economical refining capacity outside of Canada. To build capacity in Canada would require government assistance – a very poor use of capital.

        • doconnor says:

          I understand oil companies have manipulated things so that refining isn’t profitable.

          Apparently, shipping oil off to be refined elsewhere also requires government assistance.

  8. Mezba says:

    Scheer is like Harper – who was the worst PM of Canada. So, thanks but no thanks.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      PMSH was the greatest PM in Canadian history helped greatly by the greatest finance minister in our history- Jim Flaherty.

    • Fred from BC says:

      Oh, please…

      The people who actually know about this stuff (historians, political scientists, etc) rank Stephen Harper somewhere around number 11 in popularity. Robert Borden is considered by most to be Canada’s “worst” Prime Minister.

      Harper Derangement Syndrome still flourishes in some quarters, obviously (is that you, Michael Harris?)…

  9. Steve says:

    Trudeau is vulnerable on many fronts. Encouraging illegal immigrants to overrun our border, fiscal irresponsibility by continuing to run tens of billions in yearly deficits and lying about returning to a surplus in 2019, killing the energy industry while pretending to save it, as well as the carbon tax fiasco that is likely to blow up in his face. On the plus side he hasn’t groped anyone lately (that we know of).

    • The Doctor says:

      I agree the approach being taken to the deficit is whistling past the graveyard in what has been an historically anomalous low interest rate environment. Certain people on the centre-left part of the spectrum are starting to treat government debt like it’s free beer or something. Not to mention Trump on the alt-right side of the ledger . . .

    • The Doctor says:

      You’re also correct that Trudeau/Morneau have handed the Tories a potential campaign gift on the deficit, because now it’s clear that the Liberals lied their faces off about that issue. The question is, will the Tories play this hard and intelligently, and will voters care. There is that Trudeauite leftish proggie wing of the Liberal Party that doesn’t give a flying fuck about deficits, the question is, will the Blue Liberals and Red Tories be disgusted enough to be willing to vote Tory in protest.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Doc,

        That issue likely has been largely nutered what with the right’s Saint Trump racking up the Mother of All Deficits down South.

        Serial deficits and no balance usually make the top five here but rarely get into the top three, as this PM obviously knows.

  10. James Smith says:

    Great advice. That is assuming Canadians want a nasty version of Stephen Harper without the charisma.

  11. Miles Lunn says:

    I think another thing Scheer needs is luck. Generally winning in a lot of ways is being in the right place at the right time. Mulroney, Chretien, Harper, and Trudeau were all just that as was Doug Ford, Rachel Notley, Brian Pallister, and Francois Legault. Not saying those don’t deserve credit for winning, but each was replacing a long serving government that had become unpopular with the electorate. Usually in the first term, Canadians tend to cut PM’s a lot of slack and only boot them out if they mess up badly. Still there is a risk Trudeau team get overconfident as that could blow up in their face. Shawn Graham going into 2010 had a much bigger lead a year before and looked set for re-election, but then his plan to sell NB Power to Hydro Quebec killed that so Trudeau needs to avoid doing something stupid like that.

    Also if we enter a recession, the deficit might become a bigger issue. Off course one of Scheer’s biggest challenges is being conservative enough to keep the base happy (don’t want Maxime Bernier’s PPC to split the vote) but moderate enough to appeal to Blue Liberal/Red Tory swing voters and finding that sweet spot won’t be easy.

  12. RichieRoby says:

    Warren, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Be the Tim Hortons (or McDonald’s, since I hear their coffee is better) to their Starbucks.

    I cringe at even the thought of Scheer trying to look awkwardly cool, and media mocking it.

    Right now, there’s a lot of Canadians who want to go back to having a (relatively) benign, boring and stable Prime Minister, and not have the selfie Rock star fandom fetish that the other three enjoy to various degrees at the moment.

    • The Doctor says:

      Related to that, I think it’s true that the NDP were trying to replicate the Trudeau rock star magic by electing Singh as leader. But Trudeau’s rock star-trendy socks-Selfie Boy schtick is just that, a schtick. In this case imitation may be flattery but I don’t think it’s doing anything for the NDP. You need to differentiate yourself from an opponent rather than imitate it, and I’m not sure the NDP gets that right now.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        The futher right or left you go the more important philosophy and policy matters to those segments of the electorate.

        Justin and the liberals can be vacuous virtue signallers – the NDP and it’s leader cannot – they have to have a message and solid policy planks. They have neither and thus lose a lot of support to the LPC. They really should read up on what sanders and his posse did…

  13. Jamir A. says:

    Operation White Sheep

    The statues of John A. Macdonald are coming down. Activist Shree Paradkar describes JAM as “an enforcer of Aryan supremacy…a criminally flawed man”. JAM’s image was purged from ten dollar notes and replaced by Viola Desmond.

    As the reconciliation process continues, all the colonial icons will have to go. Paradkar: “When will there be a film on Winston Churchill, the barbaric monster with the blood of millions on his hands?” Quite right. Likewise, barbaric Mackenzie King. Pierre Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien. Yusra Khogali of Black Lives Matter Toronto correctly identifies Justin Trudeau as a “white supremacist terrorist”. McDonald = Hitler = Churchill = Trudeau. There are no shades of white in the white privilege story. All the statues must come down. All the colonial images must be destroyed. Under the core doctrine of intersectionality, only a non-male Person of Colour is acceptable for Prime Minister. Comrade Jody Wilson-Raybould will be installed.

    As necessary as these actions are, decolonization will not be complete until white settler colonializers are returned to Europe. There are approximately 25,000,000 whites in the region currently named Canada. Heathrow Airport alone processed 78,014,598 passengers, 2017. It is entirely feasible to return 5 million per year to Europe – 13,700 per day – for 5 years to reach 25,000,000. As Shree Paradkar and Yusra Khogali, Asians and Africans will play a vital role in assisting their Aboriginal sisters and brothers. Organs of the Communist Party of China (CPC) have pledged loans and materiel to help with this great indigenization operation. So too India and African Consortium.

    Studies indicate that an estimated 90% of the white population would offer little if any non-compliance. Long-pacified with alcohol, now-legal marijuana, jellybean assortment of pills, the white nation is largely comprised of lotus eaters. Due to homosexuality, compulsive masturbation and myriad other sexual problems, whites have few babies. Many are extremely fat, flabby and out of shape. The roughly 2.5 million “hardcore” white nationalists may prove problematic but have limited access to weapons, money and state support e.g. propaganda. By contrast, over 2 million shipping containers enter Vancouver alone each year; weapons and materiel are easily supplied to the Resistance. As the saying: You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. Operation White Sheep can be accomplished in 5 years.

    A new dawn is breaking. Once the whites are returned to Europe, Aboriginal, Asian and African can live fully, authentically, dynamically, finally free of the oppressive structures of white supremacy. Once racist immigration quotas are lifted, the region can blossom to 100, even 200 million people living in peace and prosperity as a Rainbow Family. What began as taking down statues ends in the Utopia of a People’s Republic. It is magical and glorious!

    • Gord Tulk says:

      Utter nonsense. Get counselling.

    • Robert White says:

      Whilst removing all signs & signifiers of the white race could you please remember to take down the most salient aspect of white culture & the tyranny of the Central Bank of CANADA?

      I don’t like the limestone of Central Banks so sell the BofC limestone to the new aged hippies in that utopia you have your sights on, eh.

      RW

  14. Pedant says:

    Scheer can win only if he focuses on the most important issue of our age – immigration immigration immigration.

    If he just repeats T2’s globalist mantra for open borders, he’s toast. Max will take way too large of a share for the CPC to win.

    • Warren says:

      Among the so-called alt-Right, “globalist” is code for Jews. What do you mean when you use that word?

      • Pedant says:

        That is not the case. Yes some horrible extremists may use it that way, but most simply distinguish between nationalists (patriots) and globalists. Race, religion, and creed have nothing to do with it.

        For me, a globalist politician is one for whom the country ostensibly represented by said politician is not top priority. To put it simply, globalists do not act in the interests of their own countries. Occasionally the globalist and national interests may coincide, but not always.

        It is not in the interests of Canadians to significantly increase immigration (above and beyond a rate already 3x that of the US) at a time when our 1st and 3rd largest cities are facing extreme housing shortages and wage growth remains non-existent. But to a globalist, the best interests of Canadians are not a consideration. Trudeau has stated that Canada will be the first post-national country, and if it means Canadian-born Millennial baristas have to compete with offshore money for a place to live, that’s just the price they’ll have to pay. That is the globalist mindset, in my opinion.

        If Scheer can communicate this message, and have a strategy for countering the hysterical Liberal/CBC response that is sure to follow, he can win or at least hold Trudeau to a minority.

        • doconnor says:

          So a globalist is someone who cares about the human race?

          • Pedant says:

            Nice spin. Globalists “care about the human race” unless it impacts themselves. The fact is that elites like Trudeau, born to inherited wealth, will never have to bear the burden of a housing crisis and wage suppression caused in large part (though not exclusively) by an immigration rate that is among the highest in the developed world.

            Elected officials have a duty to act in the interests of the jurisdiction they represent. In whose interests should Trudeau act? Canadian citizens, or foreigners trying to move to Canada? or even foreigners period (recall that he effectively sided with Obama on the Keystone pipeline)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*