How in the world did a man like Carney win?
Ahnaf Ibn Qais has insightful reflections on Canada's energetic populism and the recent disappointing election results. One of the world's most dangerous and authoritarian globalists won.
"The rebellion was real. The grievances were raw.
But populism offered only noise, not structure.
It demolished consensus, but failed to build a replacement.
It is now clear: what populism mistook for revolt was merely ritual.
What it saw as revolution was therapy.
The populists screamed; the system listened — & then promptly resumed.
The populist moment left no monuments.
No institutions. No ideology. No personnel.
Only memes, martyrs, & market shocks.
Their legacy was not transformation, but catharsis.
Their language was one of negation.
Their tactic: disruption without direction.
When the emotion faded, the vacuum returned.
& into that vacuum stepped Carney.
He is not loved, but he is accepted.
Not visionary, but competent.
He does not promise a better world — only a smoother one.
His election marks not a triumph of ideas, but of institutional inertia.
He is the immune system made flesh — absorbing threats, neutralizing risk, restoring order.
No need to crush the populists. They exhausted themselves.
The system didn’t win. It simply waited.
Populism’s fatal flaw wasn’t rage — it was emptiness.
Behind the slogans were no structures.
Behind the heroes, no administrators.
Carney didn’t defeat populism — he outlasted it.
He is not the future. He is the end of a sentence.
He stands not atop a new epoch, but amidst the ash of a failed revolt.
No flags. No manifestos. No exit plan.
Just risk-managed politics for a demoralized population.
He is the undertaker. And the West, embalmed in its own regulations, politely lowers itself into the ground."
Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones.
Psalm 116:15
Rod Dreher asks, "I don’t understand why the government doesn’t deploy the army and shoot rioters until they stop. Philippe Lemoine, a Frenchman, says it’s not that simple."
Excerpt:
"We have let things rot for so long that, at this point, relying primarily on force to restore order would require a degree of violence far greater than what people realize and what is politically feasible.
It's possible to contain a riot using only moderate force when the number of police officers is high relative to the number of rioters, but when riots are so widespread and involve so many people because you have allowed this kind of things to happen for so long, that's just not possible and you have to use extreme violence to make up for the lack of manpower.
I know people on the Internet will say that it doesn't matter and that we should just do it, but the reality is that most of the people in charge are not prepared to use that kind of force and neither would most ordinary people if they saw ...
Even Marine Le Pen’s recent statements track this line: personal Islamic practice is compatible with the Republic; replacing French law with Sharia is not. French Muslims who are simply citizens practicing their "religious faith" “have no reason to worry” about a Le Pen election victory.
But can one be a practicing Muslim without demanding and practicing Sharia?