SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (190254)7/26/2022 8:11:56 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 218080
 
RE <<First thing to do is for Taiwan to delete that part of their constitution if it is not just an internet rumour started by Made in China propagandists>>

... for whatever reasons Republic of China cannot seem to be able to do so, and therefore the late comer People's Republic best ,maintain vigilance, as well as hold on to right of UN-tolerated preemptive-strike



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (190254)7/26/2022 11:02:30 PM
From: TobagoJack4 Recommendations

Recommended By
fred woodall
marcher
Secret_Agent_Man
Snowshoe

  Respond to of 218080
 
Re <<wars>>

Here below article and video has some items correct and other things wrong, and the test is in the pudding

On the final exam there shall only be one question, not essay, not multiple choice, but just 'true' or 'false'
There shall be a winner.
In any case Gold bullish.

carnegieendowment.org

What the Chinese Army Is Learning From Russia’s Ukraine War

The 1990s ushered in a revolution in military affairs in China. Planners for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) started to talk about integrating digital technologies and to debate strategy, tactics, and operations in ways that drew on lessons from the Gulf War. PLA learning, debate, assimilation, and adaptation has continued over these subsequent decades—up to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In an online event, Carnegie Endowment Vice President for Studies Evan Feigenbaum discussed this question with several scholars, including Carnegie Endowment Nonresident Scholar Charles Hooper, a retired Army lieutenant general. Excerpts from the event, which have been edited and condensed for clarity, are below.

Evan A. Feigenbaum
Evan A. Feigenbaum is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he oversees research in Washington, Beijing, and New Delhi on a dynamic region encompassing both East Asia and South Asia.

Evan Feigenbaum: Talk to us a little bit about how we should think about the role of learning in the Chinese armed forces. How important are foreign military engagements, doctrines, conflicts for them?

Charles Hooper: The PLA are careful and meticulous students of modern warfare, particularly the U.S. way of war. They are voracious consumers of publicly available information, as well as all of the information that their very aggressive intelligence efforts provide them. When I was the defense attaché at [Pacific Command] and in the Office of [the] Secretary of Defense, I used to say, “If it’s online, they’ve read it.” And I remember being in meetings where they would quote word for word any doctrine that we had posted online, or revisions to our doctrine, as well as the performance capabilities of U.S. weapon systems. . . .

But despite recent organizational reform efforts, the PLA remains essentially a political entity with a war-fighting mission. It is a party army, not a national army. And its approach to learning and leadership is heavily influenced by its own organization, as well as traditional Chinese culture and education. For example, one of the principal elements of the initial Russian military failures in Ukraine is a function of command and control, poor leadership development, internal corruption, inadequate training, and poor troop motivations. In the PLA system, development of these key capabilities is a Communist Party—not a strictly military—responsibility. And [Chinese President] Xi Jinping himself has acknowledged this. So the question becomes, and this is a historical issue with the PLA, how will the party address these military shortcomings?

Evan Feigenbaum: China is a Leninist system. Decisionmaking is centralized, but there is debate in the system. And historically within the PLA, there’s been debate in which some views prevail, and some views end up getting eclipsed, sometimes for political reasons, sometimes for operational reasons. . . . Are there views in the PLA that have basically become obsolete in the last five to ten years because of things that they have observed in foreign military situations?

Charles Hooper: There are two things that have fundamentally changed over the past forty years. The first of those is this concept among the PLA leadership that they had the advantage of defense in depth, and as a result, they didn’t necessarily need to develop even a limited power projection capability. I can remember years ago PLA generals telling me, “Well, if you attack Tianjin, we’ll fall back to Beijing. And if you attack Beijing, we’ll fall back to Chengdu.” And I remember thinking, “Why in the world would we do that?” That’s fundamentally changed. We see their defense modernization focused on giving them the ability to have a limited power projection capability, if only for anti-access area denial.

The second [fundamental change] is the concept that they have an overwhelming advantage in mass. But qualitative quantity has an even higher quality all its own. So there’s been an abandonment of this perception that [the PLA] have this overwhelming advantage in mass that’s sufficient to deter an enemy from attacking, and more of an emphasis on reducing the size of the PLA ground forces and increasing the quality of the strategic rocket forces and the support forces in the Navy, in an effort to ensure that their quality matches the qualitative advantage that the United States has always enjoyed.

Evan Feigenbaum: [Russian President] Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24. China, as we all know, has spent a couple of decades thinking about ways to coerce Taiwan. What’s happened since the 24th that might be relevant to Taiwan?

Charles Hooper: I think at the very strategic military level, one of the most fundamental tenets of PLA modernization has actually been validated by the Ukraine conflict, but it’s also paradoxical.

The nature of warfare never changes—the applications and violence to achieve a political end—but the character of warfare is constantly evolving. And that’s what we’re seeing now: an evolution of the character of warfare toward the defense, as opposed to the offense. The defense or the defending nation has an advantage here.

Russia clearly possessed an overwhelming advantage in combat power and just sheer throw weight when compared to Ukraine. But despite this, Ukraine has been able to offset this advantage by a skillful application of asymmetric military capabilities that have been supplied by its allies and partners. Now, what we need to understand is the PLA has always perceived themselves to be the defender and the United States to be the aggressor. We tend to look at it [through] the Taiwan element of it—as China being the aggressor and us being the defender—but that’s not how they see it. And indeed, their entire defense modernization emphasis . . . has been specifically focused on denying the United States the ability to project power into the Western Pacific and to prevent [it] from building “mountains of iron.”

Before we go to war anywhere in the world, we build a mountain of iron—in Kuwait, in Iraq, and in other places. And then we unleash this mountain of iron on whoever our foe is far from our shores.

The paradox here is that while the United States is clearly the aggressor and attacker, within this paradigm, Taiwan is clearly the defender. And the Ukraine conflict has demonstrated that a well-supplied, well-motivated defender can effectively disrupt or even defeat a clearly superior adversary. If nothing else, this defender can significantly increase the cost and length and duration of a military conflict to the detriment of the attacker. So, when you look at the overall lesson here, it’s the fact that this is far more complex than they might have imagined.

Evan Feigenbaum: Is there anything [the PLA has] done that they should feel better about as a result of what’s happened to the Russians in Ukraine?

Charles Hooper: Let me talk first about noncommissioned officer [NCO] corps—the issue of cultural evolution of a military force. Because what a lot of people don’t understand about leadership, battle command, and NCO corps is that the essence of the strength of these capabilities is cultural, not technical. It is the willingness of the senior officer to delegate authority and to accept the counsel of a subordinate in their command over their own judgment.

For example, as a general, I had a sergeant major. If I propose to do something and he says, “Sir, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,” I have two choices. I can get angry about it or feel as if I’ve lost face, or I can modify my plans based upon the wise counsel that he’s given. In the U.S. system, I gain in stature with my forces by doing that. In some other cultures, that would produce a loss of face and a challenge to authority that could not be countenanced. That’s why you can form an NCO corps, but it may not be as effective in a Russian or a Chinese cultural context as it is in the U.S. context.

The second thing I’d raise is this issue of battle command. Russian officers keep getting killed because they don’t trust their junior subordinates to give them an accurate picture of the battlefield. They’re being hounded by Moscow to [share] what’s going on, and they only trust their own judgment. The success of [breaking up larger formations into smaller ones] is predicated on active, adaptive combat leaders who are willing to use their own initiative during the rapid evolution of combat operations. To illustrate that, we have a saying in the U.S. military that fundamentally describes the cultural difference between the Chinese and Russian militaries and the U.S. military. And every military officer learns it from the very beginning of his training: It’s easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.

[U.S. military officers] learn to use and trust their own judgment in a rapidly evolving combat situation and explain their actions later on. And they anticipate that their leadership will support their actions, particularly if there’s a favorable outcome. And these types of cultural tenets are not necessarily common to either Russian military culture or Chinese culture. Those types of capabilities are absolutely essential to the success in information warfare– and hybrid warfare–based environments. And as we see in the Russian military, they simply don’t exist.

Evan Feigenbaum: There are two questions from audience members that get at that question of false conclusions and false analogies: What are the risks attached to over-comparing Ukraine to Taiwan? Given that the Chinese Communist Party and the PLA have their own perspectives, what are the wrong or inaccurate lessons they may be drawing from the Ukraine conflict?

Charles Hooper: Two quick points. Number one: I think one of the flawed analogies here is if we do all of the things that the Russians didn’t do, we will be successful.

The second is something that I’ve not seen a lot of people talk about: the complete failure of strategic deterrent signaling and the reading of deterrence signaling on the part of both Russia and the United States as a prelude to the Ukrainian conflict. I was rereading John Toland’s The Rising Sun about the rise and fall of the Japanese Empire, and I was struck by the failure of strategic deterrence signaling between the United States and Japan before Pearl Harbor.

We saw a similar failure of strategic deterrent signaling between the United States and Russia and between NATO and Russia. Prior to the Ukrainian conflict, both sides seemed to misread signals. And I think that there should be some study given to the strategic signaling that could take place prior to Chinese military operations against Taiwan or against the United States, so that we have a much clearer understanding of what they are saying, which might both precede the conflict and hopefully help to avoid the conflict.

Evan Feigenbaum: Does that mean we’re headed for trouble?

Charles Hooper: That’s exactly what I mean by a failure of deterrent communication. We are talking past each other. We’re not really listening to each other, and we’re not considering the messages that are being sent in the context of our opposite number, as opposed to our own context.

Evan Feigenbaum: [What are your] headline takeaways from what you’ve observed since February?

Charles Hooper: There are no regional conflicts in the twenty-first century involving great powers. The Ukraine-Russia conflict has caused food shortages in Tunisia and vegetable oil shortages in Indonesia, and rising oil prices. If we think the global implications of a Russia-Ukraine conflict are significant, wait until you see the global implications of a China-U.S. conflict.





To: Maurice Winn who wrote (190254)7/27/2022 9:08:50 PM
From: carranza24 Recommendations

Recommended By
Arran Yuan
gg cox
Pogeu Mahone
SirWalterRalegh

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218080
 
Hi, Mq.

I think you’ll enjoy this piece. Sorry, cannot attribute it except to note that I certainly did not write it or think of the ideas behind it, which are so incisive as to seem obvious.

Enjoy.

<<<< “this dovetails in sinister fashion with the basic idea that any sufficiently advanced technology cannot be distinguished from magic. highly evolved capitalism becomes such a technology and the largess and plenty it produces gets mistaken for a property of the universe rather than a made thing, a thing that must be created rather than simply reaped.” – el gato malo
Nj
Modern society is awash in stuff. There’s stuff at the grocery store. At the hardware store. At Amazon and eBay. We eat stuff, wear stuff, buy stuff, and store stuff. Click some buttons, swipe a card, tap a phone – and presto! Stuff appears, like magic.

At least for now.

We are a carbon-based species. Carbon forms the foundation of our bodies and the external world we experience. Almost everything we touch is carbon-based. As I type this, I’m sitting on a couch made predominantly from foamed polyurethane, my feet resting on a carpet made from synthetic nylon. I just sipped water from a bottle made of polyethylene terephthalate, which I then placed on a coffee table made of wood.

Not only is our stuff mostly based on carbon, but the energy required to manipulate materials – to make stuff – comes predominately from carbon-based feedstocks as well. While not all stuff is based itself on carbon – copper wire is made of copper, after all – we can’t make use of it without first extracting energy from carbon fuels. In other words, we can’t mine copper without carbon. Those excavators, dump trucks, and bulldozers aren’t going to run themselves.

Since energy is life, mastering the chemistry of carbon and harnessing the energy of stuff to make other stuff is core to the human endeavor.

Let’s develop a grossly simplified mental model. Picture a four-rung ladder. Because of gravity it takes energy to climb a ladder, but to fall from one is a spontaneous event – let go of your grip and you’ll soon reintroduce yourself to the ground. In a way, interchanging between chemical compounds is analogous to our ladder. Sometimes, going from one chemical compound to another releases energy (like falling down the ladder), whereas going in the opposite direction requires putting energy in (like climbing the ladder). Just replace the word “gravity” with “enthalpy” and you can begin to sound scientific

At the top rung of our ladder sits methane, more commonly known as natural gas. Among the hydrocarbons, methane has the most embedded energy. Way down below – on the ground – sits carbon dioxide (CO2). When you burn methane fully, you react it with oxygen and produce CO2 and water as products. That reaction gives off an enormous amount of useful energy – the increased force of hitting the ground from the top rung rather than lower ones. But once you hit the ground, you have no further to fall. CO2 is a thermodynamic sink.

The next rung down from methane sits oil. While oil is a complex mixture, for our simplistic purposes you can think of it as partially burned methane. Oil still has a lot of potential energy (falling from that height would still hurt), but unlike methane it is an easily transported liquid at room temperature and pressure. As such, oil serves many purposes for which methane is unsuitable. However, when compared to methane, you must burn more oil to get the same amount of useful energy – thus producing more CO2 on an equivalent basis.

Further down still is coal. Coal is even more oxidized than oil, sitting closer to the ground. It is also quite dirty, filled with all manner of nasty impurities. But coal is cheap and is a solid. You can literally dig it out of the ground with a pick and shovel, as was done for many decades.

At the lowest rung is wood. Wood, like all plant stuff, is the direct product of photosynthesis (so are coal and oil, of course, but wood just died more recently). In a highly inefficient process, Nature starts with CO2 and begins to climb the ladder using sunshine as the fuel. It doesn’t get very far. Having said that, wood is a fantastic raw material for all kinds of useful stuff, and vegetation is the food that powers all humans, either directly or indirectly.

It makes intuitive sense that if we are using carbon-based materials as a source of energy, we’d want to be at the highest rung possible. This is, in fact, how societies evolve. Wood burning gives way to coal, which eventually gives way to oil and then natural gas as societies can afford cleaner environments. Natural gas is by far the cleanest burning fuel. You can use it directly in your kitchen without ventilation for a reason. Nobody would advise firing up the charcoal barbeque indoors.

What’s less well-known is the same concept holds if you are using carbon-based materials to make stuff. Almost all synthetic materials in modern life start near the top of the ladder and are engineered downward in a controlled burn. This makes intuitive sense. The embedded energy to run the process is at least partially inherent in the starting material. Certain high-value materials are worth pushing up the ladder to obtain, but industry evolved the way it did for a reason – it is easier to slowly slide down than climb up.

Take polyethylene, which is the highest volume production plastic in the world. To say polyethylene is ubiquitous is an understatement. Milk jugs, garbage bags, food packaging, wire and cable applications, pipes – polyethylene is everywhere. Industrially, polyethylene is made by sliding down the ladder: ethane is converted to ethylene, which is then polymerized. Ethane is close to natural gas on our ladder, while polyethylene has virtually the same inherent energy as oil.

In theory, polyethylene could be made from corn, but that involves climbing the ladder with big steps. Corn is made from CO2 on the farm and has an energy content close to wood. To make polyethylene from corn, you first need to produce corn ethanol. Ethanol is higher up the ladder than corn (roughly in line with coal), but much lower than polyethylene. Jumping yet another full rung, while possible, simply doesn’t make economic sense, even with substantial government support. We grow corn because we need to eat. We burn ethanol as a minor additive in gasoline because the government tells us to (Iowa is an early primary state, after all). Even that level of political support can’t take us all the way to polyethylene.

So, where does stuff come from? As you can probably guess by now, it mostly comes from unwanted byproducts of the oil and gas industry (high up the ladder!). Take the aforementioned ethane. Many natural gas fields produce what is known as “wet gas.” The predominate product is methane, but a little ethane, propane, and heavier cats and dogs are included in the mix. These impurities are collectively known as natural gas liquids and are a critical feedstock that enables much of the chemical industry. One person’s annoying impurity is another’s treasured input.

Ethane is fed to a cracker, which produces ethylene. Ethylene is one of perhaps a half-dozen ultra-critical chemicals that form the foundation of virtually all the stuff we make. I can walk around a city block and perform a retro-synthetic analysis of almost everything I see and find my way back to a cracker.

Crackers operate on an almost unimaginable scale. Pictured below is ExxonMobil’s new cracker located in Baytown, Texas. It is rated for 1.5 million tons per year, which is more than 3 billion pounds. A couple of crackers produce roughly a pound of ethylene per year for every living person on the planet. That’s a lot of stuff!

As the opening quote of this piece captures so well, we live in a time where few understand how things get made. It is fine to not know where stuff comes from, but it isn’t fine to not know where stuff comes from while dictating to the rest of us how the economy should be run. In some small way, maybe this piece will educate a few influential minds to participate in a better-informed debate.

We are experiencing the early phases of runaway inflation. On what seems like a daily basis, we observe critical inputs into our economy going vertical in price. If you crimp the supply of critical inputs with no workable plan to replace them, inflation is the unavoidable outcome. Energy is stuff. Energy is life. What’s the price elasticity of demand for life, and who can afford to pay it?

Nobody could have seen this coming, they’ll say. We did.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (190254)7/27/2022 10:38:18 PM
From: Maple MAGA 1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Pogeu Mahone

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 218080
 
Jordan Peterson: Worst is yet to come from Trudeau Liberals

Rough times are a-coming, what with the cascading consequences of energy shortages, supply chain disruptions, war in Ukraine and severe and looming food and fertilizer shortages

Jordan Peterson, Special to National Post

Jul 27, 2022 • 11 hours ago • 9 minute read • 1778 Comments



Prime Minister Justin Trudeau PHOTO BY CHAD HIPOLITO/THE CANADIAN PRESS

I have had the great privilege of travelling to 40 American cities in just about as many states and to 15 European countries in the last four months, in the waning days of the great COVID panic, and I have learned many things about our great and self-conscious nation.

First: I have not travelled anywhere else where the citizens and the government are more neurotically “concerned” about the pandemic. It may have escaped Canadians’ notice, but virtually nowhere else in the developed world is it now required to wear a mask, as is still mandatory in many of Canada’s airports and on flights out of our benighted country. There is absolutely no excuse for this, except the punitive self-righteousness of the Trudeau Liberals. What else might you expect, however, from a government that also includes Chrystia Freeland, a deputy prime minister who has bragged about her colleagues’ appalling economic performance, claiming that it is actually good for Canadians to empty their wallets at the gas pumps, because of its implications in fighting the “climate emergency.” I simply cannot believe that this absolute failure of economic policy is now being trumpeted as a positive accomplishment. Here’s a hint for you saintly progressives: if you cared about the poor (the real poor, not the hypothetical poor you are hypothetically saving in the future), you would seek to drive down the cost of energy — energy that is precisely equivalent to work and, therefore, to the wealth that ameliorates poverty.

Second: it is almost impossible to overstate the degree to which Canada’s international reputation has been damaged by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Americans I have talked to (including people very well-placed politically on the Democratic and Republican fronts alike) listen in disbelief when I recount the claim brought forth by the Trudeau Liberals: that the trucker Freedom Convoy was financed by Americans hell-bent on bringing about a Jan. 6-style insurrection in Ottawa. Who would benefit from that, even in principle? Even if the Americans (Republican MAGA-types, say) cared about us — which they don’t — why in the world would they want to destabilize Canadian democracy? What’s the motive, to justify the crime? There is none. Even the American Democrats think that idea is insane.

And a non-trivial proportion of Canadians seemed willing to buy the story, despite its demonstrable falseness and preposterousness, because the alternative was the truly painful realization that governmental institutions (and some specific members of the media, especially the CBC) have now become fundamentally incompetent. It’s easier for too many smug and blind northerners to swallow the line instead that madmen MAGA Trumpists want to destabilize what is after all their biggest trading partner and most stable and reliable ally; to believe that Confederate-admiring truckers (and is there more than a single one of those?) are working in concert with the evil orange-haired demon who once ruled the United States.

And, even worse: is Prime Minister Trudeau so deluded that he failed to notice that these same “MAGA terrorists” are going to utterly shellack the hapless Democrats this coming fall and take the presidency in 2024 and that we will then have to talk, trade and otherwise consort with them, as they are the perennial elephant on our doorstep, and that burning all bridges in that direction with casual derogation might not be particularly politic? The unfortunate answer to that question is, “Clearly, yes! Trudeau is that pretentious, presumptuous, careless and uninformed. But, after all, he doesn’t bother himself with such trivialities as monetary policy.”

Third: on the international front, I have had extensive discussions with political and cultural figures in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Hungary, Estonia, Albania, Austria, Croatia, Slovenia, Poland and Serbia, and I know firsthand that Canada has hurt itself very badly on the reputational front with the derisive dismissal of the trucker convoy (which has spawned similar movements in other countries — most notably the U.S. and the Netherlands), with the imposition of the Emergencies Act and, most signally, with the freezing of private bank accounts without due process (or any pesky process at all). Perhaps Canadians are trying to downplay the significance of all of this, because we are in some state of shock after all the COVID over-reach, which we have not yet sloughed off. (And on that note: I have not seen people anywhere in all my travels more terrified by their government than Torontonians, except perhaps in Vancouver. And this includes the denizens of the almost equally-woke-as-Canada states of New York and California.) Everyone outside is asking: just what in hell is going on in the Great White North? And not without true sorrow. Our country was for many years a beacon of both possibility and stability, a remarkable example of what a tolerant modern democracy might be, a place where people from multiple cultures could thrive, and a staid, sober but also sporadically interesting and creative place.

And because three catastrophes are not enough, here’s an additional selection, peppered with some questions: How have Canadians failed to realize that our government holds them in contempt? That Trudeau believes that his God-given mission is to elevate the consciousness of his citizens, instead of serving their interests, economically and practically? That the Trudeau Liberals are perfectly willing to make us all poor, miserable and demoralized just to utterly fail in their efforts to save the planet? That the agents of that party and government are, as previously noted, perfectly willing and eager to trumpet that aim, which can be easily attained through the wretched combination of incompetence and moral Machiavellianism that characterizes the Trudeauites, as a moral accomplishment? That we could be the freest, richest, cleanest country in the world but that we are trying hard to be none of those three? That we are dividing ourselves among racial lines that are more germane to the U.S., just to mimic the very progressive radicals whose policies are dooming the Democrats to what appears to be their worst electoral defeat in at least 50 years? That all the data on the environmental front indicates that the fastest way to improve the ecosystems on which we all depend is to make people richer, not poorer (and to do that with good old capitalism) so they have the luxury to think about the long run and the habitat of their children?

And I have said nothing about additional issues such as Bill C-11, which is perhaps the most appalling piece of legislation currently on the books (and that’s a tough competition), which renders virtually every internet content provider in the world subject to the rules that should not even still govern the CBC and CTV (despite their use of scarce public airwaves), and which will make the rules regulating the net in Canada some of the most absurd and restrictive in the free world (and beyond). Or that we are pursuing an energy policy generated by ideologues that will not only impoverish our populace by making energy unreasonably expensive (have you noticed, Canadians, when you fill up your unnecessary vehicles at the pumps?) but that will only increase the probability that countries such as China will have to rely on coal to produce electricity instead of accessing, say, our plentiful natural gas. And that will therefore make the CO2 burden borne by the atmosphere greater instead of lesser. And, just last week (and in the aftermath of the Dutch farmer protests), that we are trying to reduce the absolute levels of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide produced by those who grow our food regardless of the amount of those crops produced in consequence. And that we’re doing that by threat and force — shades of COVID policy — instead of working with the farmers to find mutually acceptable and truly sustainable economic and environmental solutions.

Or the incomprehensible insistence of NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, sworn enemy of the real working person, that the proper role of the “socialist” NDP is to indefinitely prop up Trudeau’s government, despite the fact that there seems to be nothing in it for Singh’s party at all — not even the cabinet position that a competent negotiator could have at least obtained as compensation for the sacrifice of his soul.

Or the fact that our judiciary must now be staffed by people who swear fealty to the diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE) ideology that has devastated universities and is now working its way through many careless corporations. That we are producing a generation of activist judges who are usurping what should be legislative action so that they can “improve” the world more efficiently than mere Parliament, with its lack of Chinese-Communist-Party efficiency, might manage. Or the fact that the OECD has predicted that Canada will have the worst growth prospects of the major industrial societies for the next FOUR DECADES (please excuse the annoyed capital letters but good God — the worst? And for four decades?).

I believe that the federal Liberals have run the most incompetent administration in Canadian history; that they have not yet done all the terrible damage that they are going to do; that Canadians will not wake to the reality of the situation because an awakening at that level requires a level of conceptual restructuring and consequent emotional trauma that we have never been called on before to manifest; and that Trudeau’s idiosyncratic combination of wilfully blind ignorance, moral pretension and narcissistic self-aggrandizement is toxic. Singh might, if anything, be worse.

Trudeau’s government has been wracked by scandals, each one severe enough to justify the dissolution of Parliament under normal conditions, so numerous that it is almost impossible to recover from the shock of one revealed misbehaviour quick enough to process the next. And we could have four more years of this, particularly if Singh continues to ambulate miraculously without a spine, something physiologically impossible but apparently simultaneously possible on the political and conceptual front.

This is not good, Canadians. We not only look like fools to our great American allies and internationally (and the particularly self-righteous fools that only Canadians can be), we are actually being fools, led by the king of fools, and we’re going to pay for it. And so are our children and grandchildren. This government has to go, and the sooner the better. And hopefully — God willing — we’ll be fortunate enough to find some competent adults to lead us. Conservatives: do you have it in you? Pierre Poilievre, Jean Charest, Leslyn Lewis, Roman Baber, Scott Aitchison: can you shake off the mob-generated guilt and consequent moral timidity that has so effectively hamstrung opponents of the leftist radicals for the last 15 (or 40) years and stand forthrightly for traditional values of family, economy, culture and, indeed, environment? Can you serve as genuine guardians of the working and middle class (and rich and successful entrepreneurs and businesspeople, for that matter) and put forward a positive and attractive vision that’s more than mere reaction to the over-reach of the utopian left? Can you withstand the temptation to destroy your party with internal squabbles or to settle in September for a candidate that displeases no one but fails to truly satisfy anyone as you have done much too often in the past?

Rough times are a-coming, what with the cascading consequences of energy shortages, supply chain disruptions, war in Ukraine and (last but by no means least) severe and looming food and fertilizer shortages. The Liberals and NDP are gone, gone, gone into the utopian clouds. I pray we have in Canada something in reserve that is better — although it is truly hard to see how anything different from what we have now could be worse.

National Post