Pinned Tweet
As our governments grow ever closer to China-economically and ideologically-this is what the next Freedom Convoy will look like.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
Canadian politician Danielle Smith announces an expansion of the covid vaccine program in Alberta.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
‼️JUST IN: Canada’s Defense Bank Dreams COLLPASE as UK Delivers Brutal Snub
This coalition of the middle powers didn't even last 3 months.
In a humiliating blow to Ottawa’s global ambitions, the United Kingdom has flatly rejected Canada’s invitation to join the Canadian-led Defence, Security and Resilience Bank.
Despite months of high-level talks between Prime Minister Mark Carney and UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Britain walked away, choosing instead to back its own Multilateral Defence Mechanism.
Officials said there were irreconcilable differences over headquarters location, joint procurement rules, and future membership criteria.
This “middle power” alliance has spectacularly failed, leaving Canada’s flagship defence project ISOLATED.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
🚨SPOT ON: Elon Musk summed up Charlie Kirk in one line, and it still hits just as hard.
"He was killed because his words made a difference. He was showing people the light, and he was killed by the dark."
Charlie never needed a weapon. He had a microphone, a folding table, and the courage to debate anyone who walked up.
That's what scared them.
They thought silencing him would end it.
Instead, millions more picked up where he left off.
The light is still winning.
JUSTICE FOR CHARLIE. 🇺🇸
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not.
Here's why, explained so simply a 10-year-old could get it.
It starts with a book written in 1944 by an Austrian economist named Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom.
Capitalism has a win condition. Socialism does not.
Here's why, explained so simply a 10-year-old could get it. It starts with a book written in 1944 by an Austrian economist named Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom.
Imagine a classroom of 30 kids. One day the teacher says: "From now on, I decide what everyone eats for lunch, which games you play at recess, and who sits next to whom. It's fairer that way."
First problem: the teacher doesn't know what you like. You hate carrots. Your friend is allergic to peanuts. Lucas wants to play football, Emma wants to draw. 30 kids, 30 different wishes. Nobody can know all of that, not even the smartest teacher on Earth. Hayek called this the knowledge problem. The information needed to run an economy is scattered across millions of heads, and it can't be gathered in one office.
Second problem: the kids start fighting. "Why does he get the window seat?" "Why football again?" Before, everyone just chose for themselves. Now every choice is a fight, because every choice is made for everyone.
Third problem: the class can't agree on a plan, so someone says "we need one person in charge who just decides." This is Hayek's key insight. Planning doesn't fail because planners are evil. A plan needs everyone to agree on the same goals, and free people never agree on everything. So the plan needs force to work.
Fourth problem, and it's the scariest one: who wants that job? The kind kid doesn't want it, because the kind kid doesn't want to force 29 people to eat carrots. The job attracts the one who likes giving orders and doesn't mind punishing those who disobey. Hayek wrote a whole chapter on this, called "Why the Worst Get on Top." It doesn't happen by accident. It happens by selection.
Here's the trap. When the person who controls your lunch also controls your job, your home, your shop and your newspaper, they control your whole life. You can't say no, because there's nowhere else to go. Controlling the economy doesn't mean controlling one part of life. It means controlling the means to every goal you have.
That's the road to serfdom. Nobody votes for a dictator. People vote for "someone should fix this," then for "give them more power to fix it," and one day they wake up with no one left to say no to.
The USSR, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. These are different countries with different cultures and languages, and the story has the same ending every time. When a script produces the same ending every time, it isn't bad luck. It's the script.
Now capitalism. Back to the classroom. Instead of one teacher deciding everything, every kid can trade. You give me your carrots, I give you my apple, and we both walk away happier. Nobody needs to know what everyone wants, because prices do that job. A price is a message telling millions of strangers what's scarce and what's wanted, with no one in charge.
That's the win condition. In capitalism, you get rich by making something other people freely choose to buy, so your success depends on serving others. In a planned system, you get ahead by pleasing whoever holds power. One rewards usefulness. The other rewards obedience.
And this isn't theory. Two centuries ago, almost every human being was extremely poor. In 1990, about 38% of humanity still lived in extreme poverty. Today it's under 10%. More than a billion people escaped it in a single generation. It happened when China, India, Vietnam and South Korea opened up to markets, trade and private enterprise. The largest reduction in poverty in human history came from letting people trade.
So why do so many people hate capitalism?
Because what they hate usually isn't capitalism.
They hate the bank that got bailed out with their taxes while they lost their house. They hate the giant company that writes the regulations so no startup can compete with it. They hate rent they can't afford because building new homes has been made nearly impossible. They hate the lobbyist who gets a subsidy while the small business owner drowns in paperwork.
Look closely at each one, and you'll find a state handing out privileges. A bailout is not the market. The market would have let the bank fail. A regulation written by incumbents is not competition. It's protection from competition. None of this is capitalism. It's cronyism, which is what happens when businesses stop competing for customers and start competing for politicians.
People see the symptom and blame the wrong cause. They say "capitalism failed" and ask for more state. That gives more power to the same people who created the problem, and it puts us right back on Hayek's road.
The answer to bad capitalism isn't less freedom. It's less privilege. That means fewer bailouts, fewer protected incumbents, fewer permits, and more people allowed to build, compete and trade.
Capitalism has a win condition: make things people want. Socialism has an end condition: someone has to be in charge. And history keeps showing us who ends up in that chair.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
Oh Olivia, that endorsement says more about you than Bradford! 😂
Former deputy mayor under Olivia Chow endorses Brad Bradford torontosun.com/news/local-ne…
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
🚨🚨 THE ILLEGITIMACY PLAYBOOK / THE DEMOCRACY FILES: A PRIMER 🚨
I will be using this thread to track all drops, so bookmark it.
I spent most of yesterday backing everything (now 312 gigabytes) up in various sources and getting the materials out to others. I also produced an AI video (below) to explain the whole thing to others are not on 𝕏 - feel free to distribute.
Here's the primer:
USAID, the foreign aid agency, had a democracy office. Inside the agency, it was called DRG.
Officially, DRG administered "democracy assistance." They'd go inside countries they thought were sliding into authoritarianism and help the opposition there. That assistance included election monitoring, judicary support, independent media, and civil society building.
You may have heard the term "color revolution." The model comes from Serbia in 2000, where trained student activists brought down Milosevic with the help of Western governments, after sustained protests. With the help of USAID's democracy office, this model was implemented in many other countries to topple governments: Georgia's "Rose Revolution" in 2003, Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and many more.
Then last year, DOGE shut down USAID. But the USAID democracy office didn't stop. They formed a group called the Democracy Renewal Group, the same initials as their office (USAID Democracy, Human Rights, Governance). Their goal: apply their own playbook to the United States itself.
This goal became a plan, called Renew American Democracy (RAD). It invoked the "4 B's" framework. Block - use lawfare and protests to make life harder for the Trump administration. Bridge & Belong - control dialogue and win people over. The final and most important B is Build. Build means redesigning the American government itself, and the crisis is the opening.
In their own words:
"We can take that breakdown moment and leverage it for a big structural reform, you know, refounding moment." - Danielle Reiff, DRG lead.
Calls show DRG working alongside DSA on ideas of creating a different government, one that does away with the Constitution itself.
DRG does not run the Block operations. They hand it to UDA, the United Democracy Alliance. One organizer calls it a "huge galaxy": lawsuits, street protests, non-cooperation. They list No Kings, Indivisible, MoveOn, 50501, and many other mega-activist NGOs among their members.
Another organizer calls UDA Erica Chenoweth's project. Chenoweth is the Harvard professor behind the three-and-half-percent rule of regime change: get that share of a country's populace onto the streets, and historically, the movement wins.
The UDA is very "hush-hush." They have no website, no roster, no filings.
Then come the red lines: things the Trump administration could do, such as calling the Insurrection Act on protesters, that would mean that the federal government, in their words, "crosses the threshold into illegitimacy." Nobody voted on those lines. There was no public debate. These red lines were developed within secretive working groups, and in a paper addressed to governors and staff.
In the words of Reiff/DRG:
"So that if there is a red line crossed in terms of a Constitutional crisis, like everyone's already pre-organized. And so Mike Smith actually said, he goes, oh, you guys have the day after tomorrow plan."
Cross a line, and the paper's options include states refusing to lend their resources to federal officials, and governors convening what it calls a "Third Continential Congress."
Running the UDA's Insurrection Act working group: Rear Admiral Mike Smith (RET) of National Security Leaders of America (NSL4A). NSL4A is also credited with operationalizing UDA, the blocking operations. NSL4A consists of about 1,600 ex-officers, spies, diplomats. They're turning red lines into indicators and running a situation room to monitor them throughout the midterms and beyond.
The NSL4A's lawyers told them to stop recording meetings in case of subpoenas. But the rest of the network continued to record. DRG works in conjunction with Renew to Thrive (R2T), which ended up accidentally publishing 400+ calls and thousands of documents. These calls and documents were never meant for our eyes, but it's them, on tape.
Thousands of NGOs and billions of dollars are involved in this endeavor. Most of them believe they're saving democracy. The problem is that people who spent their careers deciding when other countries' governments had lost their legitimacy wrote that test for ours, in private, and planned for what comes after.
Who decides when your government is legitimate?
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
David Eby already had a majority.
Two years left on the clock.
He called a snap election nobody asked for, chasing an even bigger one. 🎲
A month later?
NDP went from 47 seats to 27.
B.C. Conservatives form government for the first time since 1928. 💙
A $13.8 BILLION deficit. Property owners spooked by land title rulings. Housing out of reach.
Turns out voters were paying attention.
"I accept full responsibility." Yeah, you do. 🤦🏻♂️
Basic math, eh? 🇨🇦
Eby concedes
This will go down in history as one of the biggest political mistakes in Canadian history.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
Spent the last 2 weeks in Canada, and it's immediately clear why America will keep its competitive advantage forever.
Don't get me wrong, I love Canada! It's beautiful out here, and the people themselves are also lovely.
But! There is a serious lack of ambition, and an enormous amount of averseness to risk in a way that is not really fixable imo
Canada will struggle to find another stock-market success story like Shopify as the country grapples with a public-listing drought and a delisting trend, according to Daniel Nowlan at National Bank Capital Markets bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
Laura is doing her best to retain the title of #1 intelectual midget on Canadian X.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
Eby was first, you are next clown. Only a matter of time before people realize what you are doing.
We see that you went to Guyana, then Turkey within the same week, both countries that have carbon credit markets.
You're doing nothing to help the people of Canada. You're using your role as Prime Minister as a way to enrich yourself.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
David Eby has RESIGNED as leader of the NDP
This is officially the funniest self own in political history
Goodbye David Eby you woke clown
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
🇨🇦🇺🇸 Lesson of the year: anti-Trumpism is no longer a viable platform provincially.
The question is: does it still work federally?
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
🚨🚨🚨 A warning to Americans, from a Frenchman. 🚨🚨🚨
You are starting to elect people who promise you more state, more redistribution, more "free" things. New York already has a democratic socialist mayor, perhaps the furthest-left since Fiorello La Guardia. I'm not here to tell you how to vote. I'm here to tell you how this story ends, because we lived it. France ran this experiment for 40 years, and we are now living its final chapter.
It starts in May 1981. François Mitterrand wins the presidency with the Communists in government. The program is pure romance. They nationalize the big banks and industrial groups. They lower the retirement age to 60, cut the work week, add a fifth week of paid vacation, create a wealth tax, and hire massively in the public sector. "Changer la vie", change life itself. That was the slogan.
Reality took less than two years to answer. Capital fled. The franc was devalued three times. Inflation stayed in double digits while our neighbors were bringing theirs down. In March 1983, Mitterrand made a U-turn and imposed austerity, "le tournant de la rigueur".
Remember this, because it is the pattern. Socialism doesn't fail once and disappear. It fails, reinvents itself, and changes its electorate.
After 1983 the Socialists had a problem. They had abandoned the economic revolution, so what was left to sell? The answer was identity politics before the term existed. In 1984 SOS Racisme was born, closely tied to the Socialist Party. The moral battle replaced the economic one. Anyone who raised the question of immigration or integration was no longer an opponent. He was a racist.
Then came the first real test. In 1989, three girls showed up to a public school in Creil wearing the Islamic veil. The Socialist government refused to decide, sent the question to the courts, and let it rot for fifteen years. The ban only came in 2004. That was the moment the Republic blinked. The message received was simple: if you push, the state will back down.
Over the following decades, the left slowly replaced the working class it had lost with a new coalition. In 2011 the Socialist think tank Terra Nova wrote it down in black and white, saying they should stop chasing blue-collar workers and build a coalition of graduates, youth, and minorities. Electoral clientelism became strategy. In certain cities, local politicians traded subsidies, jobs, and silence for votes delivered by community networks, including Islamist ones.
The result today is that in the 2022 presidential election, Muslim voters gave 69% of their first-round votes to Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the hard-left candidate. A party that once claimed to be secular is now courting religious identity. Let's be precise: this is not about our Muslim fellow citizens, millions of whom are fully French. It is about a political machine that decided a community vote was worth more than the principles of the Republic.
Now the economy, because the two collapses are the same collapse.
In 2000, the Socialist government of Lionel Jospin, with Martine Aubry as labor minister, imposed the 35-hour work week. The theory was that sharing work creates jobs. What it actually did was make French labor more expensive, destroy the culture of effort, disorganize hospitals that still haven't recovered, and teach an entire generation that work is a burden the state should shrink for you.
That is the deep logic of socialism. It doesn't make people richer. It makes them dependent. Every new subsidy creates a voter who fears losing it. Every new public job creates a voter who defends the system. After a while, you no longer have citizens. You have clients.
Look where it ends. France hasn't voted a balanced budget since 1974. Public debt was around 20% of GDP when Mitterrand arrived. It is now around 3,550 billion euros, about 118% of GDP. France is once again Europe's biggest spender, with public spending at 57.3% of GDP. And a report commissioned by the government in July 2026 projects that without budget efforts, debt would reach 130% of GDP by 2030.
And to be completely honest, the right didn't fix any of this. Chirac, Sarkozy, Hollande, Macron: they all managed the decline instead of reversing it. The left set the direction, and the right lacked the courage to change it. That's how you get 40 years of slow rot, economic and social at the same time. A country that works less, pays more, gets less security, and no longer dares to say what it is.
So today France has two choices, and so will you if you go down this road.
The first choice is to stop lying to ourselves. Multiculturalism, meaning many cultures living side by side with no common rules, does not work. It never has, anywhere. When there is no shared culture on top, one culture eventually takes over the others. That's not hate, it's sociology. What worked in France for 150 years was assimilation. You come, you become French, you take on the language, the laws, the history, the way of life. In exchange, the nation takes you in fully, with no asterisk. Assimilation plus controlled immigration. And the deal is already signed with millions of people. Children of Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Algerian, Moroccan, and Vietnamese immigrants who are as French as I am. They are not the problem. They are the proof that the model works when we have the courage to apply it.
The second choice is to keep pretending. Let the state get bigger, let debt explode, keep buying social peace with money we don't have, and keep handing territory to those who reject the West. In that scenario, it is not impossible that France first elects a hard-left government, a Mélenchon government. Then, when the system can't pay its promises anymore, something else fills the vacuum. Michel Houellebecq wrote that story as fiction in 2015, in a novel called Submission. A lot of French people stopped laughing at it a long time ago.
France is a Western country with Western values. Equality between men and women. Freedom of expression, including the freedom to criticize religion. The law above faith. Work as dignity, not punishment. Some things are simply not acceptable here, and we need to have the courage to say it again.
America, you still have what we're losing: a culture of work, a culture of assimilation, the idea that the state is your servant and not your parent. The people selling you "more state" are making the same promise Mitterrand made in 1981. It sounds generous. It ends in debt, dependence, and fragmentation.
Don't trade the American Dream for the French Disease. We already paid the price. Learn from it for free.
Marcus Aurelius retweeted
Congratulations to Mark Carney on record-breaking growth in action verbs.
While Canadians struggle with rising costs, his government is busy trying to “deepen,” “strengthen,” “enhance,” “advance,” “foster,” “facilitate,” “encourage,” “explore” and “support” future cooperation.
Canadians have seen the speeches, summits and verbs.
We need action and results, not verbs, nouns or adjectives.






































