(written by Terry MacNeil, on April 29-30, 2025)

It was a bad night to be a Canadian socialist. Last night on TV I saw Jagmeet Singh (standing alongside his beautiful wife) deliver his concession speech, where he announced he is stepping down as NDP (New Democratic Party) leader. I knew the NDP was going to get wrecked (by strategic voting more than anything else). It blows my mind that so many social-democrats CONSISTENTLY won’t vote for A GENUINE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY, voting instead for non-social-democratic parties (especially one moving toward the right).

Said party moving toward the right – is the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), the winners of last night’s Canadian federal election. Within a fairly short amount of time, Mark Carney replaced Justin Trudeau as LPC leader and as Prime Minister – and astutely calculated where the political winds were blowing. Well, Carney’s biggest asset was that he wasn’t the universally despised Trudeau, and USA President Donald Trump’s actions were also scaring the shit out of A LOT of Canadians. Seeing that the right-wing Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) was (for a while) way ahead in the polls, Carney began to steal some of their policies. And Carney’s strategy paid off – but it must be emphasized, there is nothing unique about that strategy. The LPC has a LONG history of moving to the left or to the right of the political spectrum whenever it is politically advantageous for them to do so – and often stealing policies from rival parties (especially while campaigning during federal elections). As soon as Trudeau became LPC leader back in the day, I had him marked as a vapid charlatan and idiot. AND YET, Trudeau made then NDP leader Tom Mulcair look like a fool – because Trudeau moved the LPC further left than Mulcair had positioned the NDP. Mulcair suffered several fatal blows that election – one of which was trying to turn the NDP into yet another centre-left party. And the NDP has never truly recovered from that fuck up – I say THAT was a federal election that Singh MIGHT have been able to win, if he had been NDP party leader at the time. But I digress.

Last night’s defeat of the CPC shows the short-sighted strategy of rabidly attacking Trudeau and Singh for years, and not only not bothering to prepare for a change in circumstances – but when the circumstances DID change, the CPC had no clue what to do. I can’t stand Pierre Poilievre – but I fear this won’t be the end of that mouthy shithead’s political career.

In closing, this brings me to the joke book put out by Mark Carney – titled Value(s) Building a Better World for All. His book’s title (which weakly attempts to invoke the writings of economist Adam Smith) implies that when he’s a A POWERFUL POLITICIAN, he’ll significantly REFORM capitalism to become WAY more humane. Well, bankers are known for their ethics and compassion, so… That reminds me of Chrystia Freeland’s joke book Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else – a title that made it sound like if she ever had political power, she’d bend over backwards to fight income inequality. Granted, she was never Prime Minister of Canada – but I don’t recall any of her federal budgets doing anything to help out the poor and the downtrodden. That said, I have not read Carney’s nor Freeland’s books – yet. But someday I will, because I want to skewer their books (among others) in a novel I’ve been working on for MANY years. Anyway, it seems your political strategy (if you intend on becoming a prominent politician in the LPC) is to first write a reasonably long book. And your book must make it SOUND like you’ll be compassionate – then you must be the exact opposite when you have the actual power to do something. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on April 27, 2025)

An old friend of mine identifies as politically “liberal”, and almost always votes for the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC). But as far as labels go – I’d say he’s a “social-democrat” (aka a “progressive”). And I consider “social-democracy” (as it is commonly defined today) to be the most watered down kind of socialism – because it is “pro-capitalist”. Social-democrats HATE capitalism, but they (sadly) see it as a necessary evil – though they try to make capitalism more “humane” through government regulation. Anyway, my friend is a huge fan of the NDP (New Democratic Party – which is a social-democratic political party). HOWEVER, in virtually every election (especially federal) he’s too afraid to actually vote NDP – because he assumes he’ll be throwing his vote away, and make it more likely a right-wing candidate will get elected. There was a by-election in his district not so long ago – and he told me (paraphrased) “Well, I voted Liberal – but it turned out I didn’t need to vote for them, because the NDP candidate won in the end”. When I heard that, I nearly lost it. And THAT – is the outrage that is “strategic voting”.

There will be a federal election in Canada on April 28, 2025. But my mother and I already voted early – for the NDP (even though the polls look incredibly grim for them). Because of redistricting (which I assume is in response to population shrinkage) my mother and I are now (territorially) in a WAY larger district than in the previous election. In our district, it looks like the LPC candidate will win their seat. Have I or my mother ever voted strategically? Nope! We vote with our hearts, and say “If you vote for the lesser of two evils – you still end up with evil”. So you will never get the change you truly want to see in society. Fun fact – me and my Mom are both anti-capitalists, though we’d never vote for a “Marxist-Leninist” political party. That’s because (overall) the NDP better represents us politically than the Marxist-Leninists. But since I’m an anarchist – there will never be a political party that fully represents me. But I digress. In the last USA presidential election, the vast majority of American voters were stuck with a choice between one HORRIBLE party (the Democratic Party) and another party that is WAY WORSE (the Republican Party). It’s no wonder so many leftists simply stayed home rather than vote in that election. If I were American – I’d have voted for the Green Party (or spoiled my ballot if they weren’t running in my district).

For decades, I’ve been hearing the same old/tired arguments in support of choosing “the lesser evil” – especially with regard to Weimar Germany. Before Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Communists (a Marxist-Leninist party) competed against the Social-Democrats for power. If the Communists and Social-Democrats had chosen “the lesser evil” of forming a coalition – PERHAPS World history would’ve been less bloody. But the Nazis soon formed government – and used “the state” to repress Germany’s Marxists and other socialists. What does that example have to do with strategic voting in Canadian elections? Nothing. But the stakes of voting in CANADIAN ELECTIONS are NOWHERE NEAR as high as in Weimar Germany.

In closing, I am reminded of an old George Carlin quote (paraphrased) “I don’t vote. If you vote, you’ve got no right to complain about the party that wins the election – no matter what they do when in office.” I disagree with Mr. Carlin. I say “If you vote for the party that wins an election – you have no right to complain about anything they do when in office (unless they’re doing shit they never campaigned on). And if you vote strategically – you’re a coward”. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on March 20-22, 2025)

Today, I finished reading Orwell’s Roses – a biography about George Orwell, by Rebecca Solnit. I read the novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four in high school, and I read Homage to Catalonia around the time I became an anarcho-communist. But I never got the impression (from what I knew of Orwell) that his life had been interesting. Yeah, Orwell fought in a Marxist (more specifically Trotskyite) unit in the Spanish Civil War – and I considered his experiences in that war (which comprise his book Homage to Catalonia) to be captivating. BUT his time as a soldier in that war was (relatively) brief. And since a large chunk of his life was spent as a writer – any biographer of Orwell is faced with the fact that WHAT HE BELIEVED AND WROTE ABOUT is WAY MORE INTERESTING than the activities he did during HIS ACTUAL DAY-TO-DAY LIFE. Well, when it comes to writing itself – you’re thinking and writing/typing, which in itself is an uninteresting spectacle to behold. Although, Karl Marx sounds like he MIGHT have been an exception – and I’m not saying he was manic-depressive, but I have heard he’d write with an output of physical energy that could be described as “manic”.

I’ve actually read more autobiographies than biographies. Still, I haven’t read many celebrity memoirs – but I’ve read enough of them to have detected the pattern they follow. And the vast majority of these celebrity memoirs is little more than a long list of encounters with other celebrities (from random run-ins to collaborations on shared projects – whether a movie, an album, a fundraiser, a concert, etc). So the celebrity memoir is (typically) little more than non-stop name-dropping of other famous people. I’m assuming that’s the main reason Audrey Hepburn never wrote a memoir – though long ago I did read Barry Paris’ biography of her (a book that followed much the same pattern of a celebrity memoir). The only reason I didn’t find Paris’ biography boring – was because I was (and still am) a fan of (most of) Audrey’s movies.

That said, Orwell’s Roses might be the most enjoyable biography I’ve ever read – mainly because of the frequent digressions by Solnit. First, it must be emphasized that gardening is the way Orwell spent a lot of his time – and a lot of his writing was about gardening. As for me, gardening is one of THE LAST things I’d ever want to do. As for Solnit’s digressions, she would often stop writing about Orwell, and typically spend a few pages writing about other gardeners throughout history (with focus on various commonalities between them). For many of these digressions, Solnit wrote about people (some of whom weren’t gardeners) that had never met (let alone known) Orwell. Other digressions centre not on specific people, but on gardening itself (especially aspects of its commodification). But it must be said – these digressions result in a much richer biography. Through the lens of gardening (even with regard to brutes like Joseph Stalin who loved to show off his gardens, while having zero interest in tending them himself) we are better able to understand why gardening is a passion for so many – with particular emphasis on Orwell’s passion. And because of Solnit’s many digressions, we are able to get a deeper SENSE of Orwell himself (at least with regard to things he left unsaid about himself).

Also, major props to Solnit for FREQUENTLY quoting Marxists (for their historical research) throughout her book (and without feeling the need to be constantly condemning them). Well, she condemns various murderous Stalinists (for good reason). But as an anarchist, I found it refreshing to read a book that in many ways is about socialism – without feeling the need to belittle socialism. Solnit even had praise for Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman! Kudos. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on March 15-16, 2025)

During Donald Trump’s first term as US President, he was so nervous and unconfident – he’d agree to do whatever his advisors advised (I heard he would always go with the advice of whoever was the FINAL advisor in the long line of advisors that would be giving him advice on an issue). Now that we are in Trump’s second term as President, he’s WAY more assertive/confident, and is committed to carrying out the shit he’s been preaching for years.

But first, we must look at the “New Imperialism” – as defined by Marxist intellectuals like David Harvey (who wrote a book about it, titled The New Imperialism, which I have not read yet) and other Marxist intellectuals like Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin (who co-wrote a brilliant book I did read, titled The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire). Is there a USA empire? And if there is, is it global? Panitch and Gindin emphasized that the USA has an “Informal” Global Empire – instead of militarily occupying every corner of the globe (as a “Formal” Global Empire would), the USA instead occupied vast swaths of the globe with its multinational corporations (MNCs, which resulted in an “economic occupation” rather than a “military occupation” by the USA). Though it must also be emphasized, the USA has a HUGE number of military bases located around the World – so the USA felt the need to retain an element of a “Formal Empire” aka “Old Imperialism” to provide the muscle to protect its MNCs, protect its trade routes, and protect friendly/vassal countries around the World (while also militarily surrounding its rivals/enemies).

With the era of “globalization”, the USA was able to have a GLOBAL Empire (after the collapse of the USSR) where the World’s manufacturing was dispersed globally (usually to the places where production costs were cheapest, and workers’ rights were nonexistent). But in more recent years, there is an increasingly strong international right-wing backlash against globalization – and we have seen China ascend to become an economic rival of the USA. Under “globalization”, there was NEVER supposed to be a rival of the USA – especially not an economic one. Russia will never be an economic rival of the USA – but China sure is.

Now we come back to Trump – a guy who thinks American tariffs (or trade sanctions) will result in every fantasy he wants to come true. To quote William Appleman Williams (who was quoted by Alfred W. McCoy in his great book In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power) the “grand illusion” most Americans are under is “the charming belief that the United States could reap the rewards of empire without paying the costs of empire and without admitting that it was an empire.” The only thing imposing tariffs on the USA’s allies, and trade sanctions on its rivals will do – is speed up the end of the US Empire.

If you tried explaining how the “New Imperialism” aka “Informal Empire” works to Trump – he’ll never get it. He believes the New Imperialism results in the economic exploitation of the USA by THE REST OF THE WORLD – and that the USA gets NO BENEFIT from it. So he’s regressing back to the “Old Imperialism” forms of empire – by wanting to annex territory (such as Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal). It’s clear the USA wants Canadian resources – especially water (one day they’ll say “Sell us your water, or we’ll take it by force”). Trump wants to bring ALL manufacturing back to the USA – so it will have all the resources it needs at its disposal to wage a military war with China (and any other rivals) and for American workers (but no one else on Earth) to get well-paying factory jobs (which won’t happen). Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on March 5-7, 2025)

I am WAY late to the game, when it comes to learning about the transgendered community. I’m well-aware the trans community is among the most hated (AND most misunderstood) parts of society – and it only gets worse if you’re trans AND a racial minority. These days I’m mainly focused on reading economic and political books – but I figure I’ll need to keep an eye out for a bunch of books (for future reading) about what it’s like to be a transgendered human, and their experiences/perspectives in a (mostly) cisgendered World.

I recently re-watched the movie Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. It’s a movie I’ve loved since my childhood – and I still consider it a hilarious film. Jim Carrey’s comedies aren’t for everyone – but they are for me! However, after taking a glance at the film’s Wikipedia article recently – it is clear A LOT of people have criticisms about its transphobic content.

In the movie, the INCREDIBLY HOT (cisgendered) actress Sean Young portrays one of the main characters (who is also the main villain). The main villain is later revealed to have had a sex change – though it SEEMS the villain is NOT transgendered. It SEEMS to have been a case of an evil cisgendered male villain who gets a sex change, ONLY as cover so that he can carry out his revenge plot. So the movie makes it seem the male villain was NOT “born in the wrong body”. At least, that is how I read the film – if it turns out the villain IS legitimately transgendered, I will be genuinely surprised. But I digress.

Another reason people condemn the film for being transphobic – is because “Ace Ventura” is grossed out when he realizes he made out with the main villain. It must be emphasized – the villain still had a penis and testicles. Does that matter? Well, heterosexual cisgendered men aren’t “grossed out” by male genitalia per se – but we have a habit of being grossed out (and often incredibly embarrassed/insecure) when we are sexually attracted to someone who appears (to us) to be a physically attractive woman (when we find out the person we were attracted to has male genitalia). For many heterosexual men, if they see a male transvestite or a transwoman that they are physically attracted to – they panic, fearing that they’re sexually attracted to MEN. As for me, there’s been times I’ve seen (on TV and in movies) transvestites and transwomen (like in the movie The Crying Game) who I considered sexually attractive. Would I ever fuck a person that I KNEW was someone who had male genitalia? NO. But that’s just me. It also means I consider (by my standard) a TINY percentage of androgynous men can pass as a “pretty” woman (when they’re “done up” to look like one).

In closing, I highly doubt the filmmakers of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective knew anything about the transgendered community – and I doubt they cared. It is clear they had no intention of making a movie that was respectful of other peoples’ sensitivities (which is what you should expect from a movie made in the mid-1990s). I say the movie IS HILARIOUS – though insensitive, and in bad taste (especially when the main villain was being publicly exposed/humiliated by “Ace Ventura”). The film provides a window into the mind of the cisgendered heterosexual male – and that so many of us cisgendered heterosexual males react with SHEER HORROR when we are “getting it on” with a physically attractive woman – who turns out to have a penis and testicles. Sadly, that’s one reason so many transgendered humans are murdered by cisgendered killers. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on February 11-12, 2025)

While in town today, I heard there was a sale at the grocery store for frozen chips (aka french fries). At our grocery stores, there seem to be fewer brands of frozen chips than there used to be – and the ones that are still on the shelves, are usually pretty pricy. So I planned on “stocking up” (as in, buying AT LEAST several bags of frozen chips).

Earlier today, I get to the frozen chip section of the grocery store – and the frozen chips are almost entirely cleaned out. But I am able to score THE LAST two bags of frozen chips, much to my delight (there were some bags of “string cut” frozen chips left, but I sure as fuck didn’t want them – because of so many times I nearly burned down the house while cooking them).

After securing the frozen chips, I noticed another person who was at the frozen chips section. And it was an elderly dude in a wheelchair with one leg. I noticed he had trouble opening the fridge door, then he looked at what was available – and saw they didn’t have what he wanted. In my mind, it was clear he wanted the frozen chips I had just thrown in my cart.

After seeing that, my mind did a ton of stupid mental cartwheels. At first, I wondered “Should I offer him the frozen chips from my cart?” BUT THEN I immediately worried “What if he assumes I’m being condescending (because he’s very visibly physically disabled) and takes offence from my offer?”

As I write this now, I am reminded of advice my psychic gave me back in the day – “Don’t overthink things”. Well, I overthought things – and I ended up NOT offering the frozen chips to the disabled dude (which is what I should’ve done). THEN, as if the universe wanted to remind me of my cowardice – as I later went down various aisles in the grocery store, I kept running into the disabled dude. That was a case of the universe making it even more clear that I had NOT done “the right thing” – but by then I was worrying about it being “too late” to do what I SHOULD’VE done earlier.

So earlier today – I failed as a human being. If the disabled dude had not been visibly disabled – I’m PRETTY FUCKING SURE I would’ve offered him the frozen chips. I don’t know why, but I had it in my head that if I offered the visibly disabled dude my frozen chips – he’d take offence, and bite my head off. In retrospect, and on second thought – the odds of that happening were NIL. But I (needlessly) worried about it at the time.

In closing, I am reminded of the ten billion memes I’ve seen over the years that go on about “compassion” and “courage” being the same thing. I agree! But TODAY, as far as compassion and courage goes – I was a complete FAILURE.

My spirit guides are going to give me so much shit about this when I’m asleep tonight. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on December 30, 2024, and January 1, 9-10, 2025)

Pierre Poilievre is current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). There are two labels that most suit him: “fiscal conservative” AND “neoliberal”. On December 30, 2024, I took note of the slogans that appeared in a typical CPC ad. I shall now comment on them.

“AXE THE TAX”. For a long time, this was Poilievre’s only slogan. So Poilievre will scrap the carbon tax, and the Canadian federal government will do nothing to fight climate change – EXCEPT making it easier for certain fossil fuels to be exported to other countries. Poilievre hilariously claims this will REDUCE global carbon emissions ASTRONOMICALLY.

“BUILD THE HOMES”. So Poilievre will threaten municipalities to build homes – or they’ll lose federal infrastructure funding. When the municipalities fail to accommodate everyone that wants housing (because of lack of federal funding) – the municipalities will be blamed. Meanwhile, the landlords/bastards WILL CONTINUE jacking up our rents and jacking up the price of buying a house.

“STOP THE CRIME”. This sounds like hiring more cops, increased militarization of police, and fewer regulations that try to limit police brutality. And I’m reminded of former Prime Minister (and former CPC leader) Stephen Harper’s big plan (which I expect to be revived) for building tons of expensive (and unnecessary) prisons. But prisons need to be filled with prisoners – so that the prisons APPEAR necessary. I’m betting this will see a big jump in Canadian prison sentences for “crimes” that were once punished with a slap on the wrist.

“FIX THE BUDGET.” Poilievre has been a neoliberal his entire political career – even though he loves to TALK like a “right-wing populist”. But right-wing populists HATE neoliberals and globalization! Well, Poilievre quickly embraced the right-wing populist “Freedom Convoy” before he was made CPC leader – so he was able to ensure “the base” of the CPC would support his candidacy. And to be clear – “neoliberal” means you want to move back to the “liberal economics” that was common in the Western World in the 19th century. So neoliberals are OBSESSED with “deregulating the economy” (aka letting capitalists do what they want), BIG cuts to income taxes (that barely benefit the poor but greatly enrich the 1% of Canadians), BIG cuts to corporate taxes, disempowering labour unions, privatizing government services, and BIG cuts to the social safety net. The governments of Brian Mulroney (CPC), Jean Chretien (LPC – Liberal Party of Canada), Paul Martin (LPC), and Stephen Harper (CPC) were all neoliberal. Justin Trudeau’s LPC government is overall neoliberal, but he RELUCTANTLY took SOME steps to strengthen the social safety net (because of NDP pressure).

For Canada, there was a combination of international AND domestic economic factors, that contributed to the high inflation that occurred after the COVID lockdown. Our politicians speak of reducing inflation, but NEVER talk about doing anything to reduce prices. For instance, the high grocery prices under PM Trudeau are here to stay, and grocery stores will see no reason to lower their prices – even if the carbon tax is “axed”. It seems that bringing in “price controls” (which would actually FORCE grocery stores to lower their prices) is unthinkable for both Trudeau AND Poilievre – but they’re both neoliberals, so we shouldn’t be surprised.

On Jordan Peterson’s podcast (EP 511), Poilievre said the only reason Canadians are suffering – is because of various LPC policies. When PM Poilievre’s cuts fail to fix these problems – he’ll claim he’s powerless when it comes to “the economy” (the old neoliberal lie). Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on November 30 – December 1, 2024)

I get the impression there are more humans who have seen the Harry Potter movies than have read the books. Which is fine – it’s not as if the Harry Potter novels are counted among the greatest examples of English literature (though I did enjoy reading most of them). I saw most of the movies – and (as best as I can recall) it was only parts 3 and 6 that impressed me. I recall my Mom was watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2) on TV a few years ago – and I did watch a little bit of it, during the time of the “final showdown”. And I thought “Is it just me, or is the final showdown even more lame in the movie, than it was in the novel?” To be clear, I’ve only seen the first six movies in their entirety. Also, my memory of the novels is a lot clearer than it is of the movies (most of the movies left little to no impression on me). From this point on (in this note), I shall say no more of the movies.

Anyway, as unimpressed as I was by the novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I shall list a few points which would’ve improved it:
“Neville Longbottom” kills “Voldemort”. “Harry Potter” turns his back, then is killed by “Neville”. Then “Neville” becomes the new Dark Lord, after giving a longwinded speech saying he was in close contact with “Professor Quirrell”, and spending long nights reading books in the library’s Restricted Section (without ever getting caught). Also, “Neville” had a mind link with “Voldemort” – and “Voldemort” made him his heir. Would the Death Eaters accept “Neville” as their new leader? If “Neville” actually killed “Voldemort” – I imagine they would (though they might be a bit embarrassed that a teenager was their new leader). So “Neville” would probably need to schedule a mass murderous purge of the Death Eater ranks, after adopting a way cooler name for himself than “Neville Longbottom”. Oh, and “Bellatrix Lestrange” would become “Neville’s” lover.

As for all that absurdity about “Dumbledore” knowing about every single thing that ever occurred at Hogwarts – I don’t give a fuck about that. I’m confident “Voldemort” and “Neville” could’ve kept him from knowing they were collaborating.

And since the Ministry of Magic (in the UK) was overthrown by the Death Eaters – why didn’t the Ministries of Magic from other countries intervene, and try to restore order in the UK? Does the rest of the World not have their own Ministries of Magic? Did the Death Eaters have control over not only the UK, but also the Ministries of Magic throughout THE ENTIRE WORLD? Because I never got that impression.

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, represents my thoughts on (as best as I can remember) the novels. So yes, the novels left way more of an impression on me than the movies – all those years ago. I won’t be reading the Harry Potter series ever again – because when I did read them, I had read them out loud to my sister when she was child. But now she’s an adult! And I have no desire to ever set aside the time to re-read those novels to myself. Nope, I only want to retain my memories from reading those books back in the day – even though my memory of them is fading and becoming increasingly unreliable, as time goes on. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on November 18-20, 23, 2024)

The last I heard from a former friend of mine, he said I was a “quasi-intellectual” – and to be clear, that was supposed to be an insult. At the time I thought (and I still do) that since I’ll never qualify as being an “intellectual” – I’m actually OK being branded a “quasi-intellectual”. The reasons? One reason, is that I don’t have the brainpower (nor the work ethic) to complete a PhD. Another, is that I will never be able to come up with anything “new” or “groundbreaking” in fields such as economics, history, sociology, philosophy, etc. Every original thought I’ve ever had – has basically been made by someone else, before me. Although, I LIKE to THINK that the hilarious political fiction I write – is sufficiently “different” from what has come before it, and sets me apart from the vast majority of today’s fiction writers.

And today I finished reading the economist Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations (unabridged). Well, “economist” was a title Mr. Smith only applied to certain French intellectuals – not himself. So he had something in common with Karl Marx – as far as labels went, both men only viewed themselves as “philosophers”, NOT “economists”. But I digress. The Marxist economist Michael Hudson (an ACTUAL intellectual) emphasizes that if you want to properly understand economics – it is essential to read lots of Marxist economic analysis, but it is ALSO essential to read lots of non-Marxist economic analysis. That’s the main reason I forced myself to read The Wealth of Nations – and next intended on reading the economic works of guys Mr. Hudson recommended, other major “classical political economy” dudes like Mill, Ricardo, etc. Well, I suffered so much reading The Theory of Moral Sentiments and then The Wealth of Nations during the past year – that I took frequent breaks while reading those books, to read other books that were way less excruciating, and WAY MORE enjoyable. After I finished reading the entire The Wealth of Nations, I knew there was NO WAY I was going to force myself to read David Ricardo’s On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Thomas Malthus’ similarly titled Principles of Political Economy, and John Stuart Mill’s EXACTLY titled Principles of Political Economy. To do so – would not only drive me insane, there is no fucking way I’d be able to keep track of what each individual economist was saying (their areas of common agreement, and their areas of disagreement). Instead, I’ll take the intellectually lazy way out – by reading the economic books of Mr. Hudson and Ernesto Screpanti (and reading what THEY SAY guys like Ricardo, Malthus, and Mill said). I’m not an intellectual – and while I consider myself “quite smart”, I can’t possibly follow Mr. Hudson’s advice for studying economics. My IQ is not nearly high enough, and my work ethic not nearly strong enough.

And every so often, my Mom asks me if I’d ever go back to school. I always say no, because I wouldn’t want to deal with the ensuing mountain of student debt. But since I screwed up my grades so badly in my fourth year of university (and was kicked out of the Honours Program), a part of my wounded ego DOES want to start a new university undergraduate degree in economics or political science. The main reason for THAT, being that I wouldn’t be nearly as overwhelmed by the course content that I had been when I was young, dumb, drunk, ignorant, psychotic, and depressed (here referring to the years of my early twenties). Today, I’m confident I could pull off a Master’s degree in political science, and possibly in economics (though I would ONLY study economics in an institution like The New School in the USA). Oh well. I can always dream. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on November 12-13, 2024)

First off – NO ELECTION has ever made me cry. I’ve NEVER seen an election as potentially being “the end of the World” – though I bet most Germans who voted for Hitler were surprised by the apocalyptic end result. But I must add, it’s probably because I’m an anarchist, that I normally expect whoever I vote for – to lose. And not just lose – but be ANNIHILATED.

As a Canadian – we (astonishingly) pay more attention to federal elections in the USA than we do to federal elections in Canada (one reason being because American politics is more “entertaining”). That’s more of a “quirk” of our (mostly liberal) Canadian media, than it is the interests of the typical Canadian. The typical Canadian is currently EXTREMELY angry at current (Liberal) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The branches of the (small-L) liberal media in Canada PREFER to report on what’s going on in the USA, rather than ANYTHING going on in Canada that might hurt the electoral prospects of the “Liberal Party of Canada”.

The USA seems to be a place where (as far as voters go) “the winners” in an election heap scorn on “the losers”. This also happens in Canada, and is becoming more common here (thanks to social media). Since I’m considered permanently disabled – I feel more nervous when we have Conservative governments (provincial or federal), than Liberal governments (provincial or federal). And I say that, even though the last Nova Scotian provincial Liberal government (under Stephen McNeil) was incredibly VICIOUS/CRUEL/AUTHORITARIAN (Tim Houston’s current NS provincial Progressive Conservative government is, shockingly, LESS SO).

When I see conservatives OR liberals cry after an election – I laugh at them. Late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel is a recent example. He cried the day after the Trump election, during a broadcast of his TV show. I actually consider Kimmel to be WAY funnier than his late night talk show competitors. Clearly, he bought into the claim that a second Trump presidency – would be the END of democracy in America. It might – and it might not. If Kimmel DIDN’T have young children, do I think he would’ve been so worried? Well, I think Kimmel would prefer to stay in the USA. But if he ever felt, say, that America was turning into a fascist dictatorship – he’d just move to some other country in the Western World. And that’s an option that is ALWAYS available to celebrities like HIM, but NOT to the vast majority of Americans.

I recall a former friend of mine – an anarchist. He’s the guy that got me interested in anarchism, and he’d frequently remind me AGAINST ridiculing voters who voted for conservative political parties. So he had much in common with Chris Hedges (another dude that I say is an anarchist). Those two would frequently preach we can’t burn bridges with these voters – they can be won over, we just need to offer them ENOUGH to make their lives (WAY) easier. I’d want to see those voters become anti-capitalists – as unlikely as that is. But if left-wing parties actually started ADDRESSING those voters’ day-to-day life circumstances we’d get a lot of those voters to vote for SOCIALISTS. As in, actually IMPROVING LIVING STANDARDS!

And I am hearing some American liberals speak of the necessity of a movement called “THE RESISTANCE 2.0” being built, to resist Trump. Are these liberals not unaware of the completely ineffective/embarrassing movement (called “The Resistance”) that appeared the last time their liberal candidate got squashed by Trump (in 2016)? Yes, Joe Biden won ONE term as US President (in 2020 – during COVID). But “The Resistance” couldn’t ensure Senile Joe a second term, nor ensure HIS SUCCESSOR (Kamala Harris) a term as President AT ALL. Ⓐ