Michael Corleone Foreign Policy

Since we last spoke, a war has begun.

In this episode of Leviathan Must Be Stopped, Johnny Wakelin and I examine the conflict in the Persian Gulf through what we think of as a Michael Corleone foreign policy – unsentimental, and unconcerned with approval.

While the United States and its allies act, Canada hesitates.

In this episode is a wide-ranging discussion on:

• the moral case for action vs. the cost of inaction 
• the illusion of a “multipolar world” 
• the decline of Western military readiness 
• Canada’s deteriorating position as an ally 
• immigration, productivity, and the economic realities being ignored 
• and the growing disconnect between political elites and the public 

It is a conversation About whether nations still possess the will to act in their own defence—or whether they have outsourced that responsibility to abstractions, institutions, and wishful thinking.

Canada, in particular, is confronted with an uncomfortable question: Are we still a serious country? Or are we coasting on the legacy of past generations—while the world moves on without us?

Trevor Parry has an encyclopedic knowledge of tax and an unmatched determination that you will pay less of it. 

A lawyer with exceptional academic credentials and a profound believer in personal responsibility, he is on a crusade against the overreaching mega-state. 

For Trevor, creating Canada’s most innovative tax-saving strategies is not a job. It is a calling. 

There remain but a few strategies for starving #Leviathan of tax, and but a few experts who can execute them.

#leviathanmustbestopped #taxlawyer #taxrelief #taxlaw 

Website:  https://trevorparry.com/

Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/trevor-parry/

Follow on X:  https://x.com/realTrevorParry

Transcript

0:06

Welcome once again to Leviathan Must Be Stopped. I am honoured and pleased to have my dear friend, the Slayer of Arguments, Johnny Wakelin, the pride of Durham Region in what is still frozen Canada. And I'm speaking to you today from Plantation, Florida, where I have Plantation, Florida, where I have dressed up like Guy Caballero or Truman dressed up like Guy Caballero or Truman Capote, depending on one's vantage point. So Johnny, since we last spoke, a war is broken out. It's part of what I guess I call the Michael Corleone foreign policy that Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have embarked upon. Every time I hear Marco Rubio speak, I believe I'm hearing Michael Corleone's voice. But I am wholeheartedly supporting this endeavour to, for 47 years, deal with the terrorist state, and by all accounts, the air campaign goes well. and by all accounts, the air campaign goes well. Of course, at home in Canada and of course on the democratic side in the United States, there has been less than exuberant support. Our Prime Minister's stance and some of the other voices in Canada, as far as I'm concerned, have been downright deplorable. And of course, it'd be nice if we could deploy something to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but our canoes are currently rusting in Halifax. Canadians are fully unaware about how bad the state of readiness is in our bad the state of readiness is in our military, but that's another topic. What do you think about the war in the Persian Gulf? Well, first of all, it's a special military operation. Yes, we can talk about that too. Yes, we can talk about that too. I mean, I don't really take people who criticize the war very seriously. I'm sure they do, and I'm sure a lot of the public does. But, you know, as I'm studying international relations, and frankly, I think some people who study international relations somehow critique the war with a straight face. I don't know how. I guess it depends on how much one worries about nuclear fallout versus the cost of gas. You know I find it almost absurd that people could find anything to critique about this war, whether they would problematize eliminating nuclear weapons in the hands of effectively terrorists. You know, Benjamin Netanyahu was on TV last night. Certainly recently, recently recorded giving a speech saying that, you know, the price of inaction, the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of action. is far higher than the cost of action. So that's how I see it. I don't think there is any I don't think there is any negative argument about it. People say, well, what about the cost of the economy or the Straight of Hormuz? I don't care. I mean, you know my dad got set on fire in London, England. You know, he's he's a burn survivor. He was in the Royal Air Force. He lived through the bombardment of London and the Blitz. Was it worth it? Sure. It's interesting because the result of the Blitz that the Brits developed in the Blitz is clearly not evident in the governance that they currently unfortunately suffer. Sir Keir Starmer makes Clement Attlee and Neville Chamberlain look like Rambo. It's absolutely deplorable to see the British government basically walking away from the special government basically walking away from the special relationship they have with the United States. And it's also, I mean, indicative of And it's also, I mean, indicative of a country that's just like Canada, let its Defence absolutely fester. They have two aircraft carriers. They can't operate them at the same time. They have, the French have now deployed the de Gaulle and a number of frigates and destroyers, equivalent to what the Royal Navy has. The Royal Navy sent one frigate that's currently sitting at Gibraltar, and Mr. Starmer currently sitting at Gibraltar, and Mr. Starmer cowers at 10 Downing because the Iranians cowers at 10 Downing because the Iranians are trying to hit the British base in Cyprus. The resolve, the resolve of the Blitz, is sadly, sadly lacking in today's Britain, and I'm sure as we get closer to the end of this Labour Government and hopefully the arrival of Nigel Farage and a Reform Government, can start seeing it emerge again. But what do you think about Canada's stance on this? I mean, our military is a joke, I mean, our military is a joke, but we should be doing something. So a couple of quick points. So a couple of quick points. I think we now understand why the Americans treat us badly. I think the Americans have figured out a long time ago that we are no longer the ally we claim to be. When people criticize America and point to Canadian, you know, past acts of Canadian valour of past generations, I mean, we've been coasting off of Vimy Ridge for a long time. And the people today, it's almost stolen valour. And the people today, it's almost stolen valour. You know, the people alive today do not, have You know, the people alive today do not, have proven that they are unwilling to defend that's that that that alliance with the United States. They cherry-pick which times they decide to defend or not. That's not an ally, that's a sort of a fair-weather friend. And I understand the difficulties over trade irritate people, but that's that's completely different than whether or not you stand behind your core ally in one of the major geopolitical turning points in history. On that subject, I would quickly say On that subject, I would quickly say that you know Canada, at the same time, that you know Canada, at the same time, is sort of mobilizing internationally behind this idea of a multipolar world. Now, people who study international relations recognize the rhetoric that Carney's engaged in. This has been a wish cast, a fantasy of the left for a long time. The global left is against an American hegemony, in particular a capitalist American hegemony, which they see opposed to the global woke left. They don't articulate it that way, but that's their problem. And Carney's on that team. And Carney's on that team. And I think the United States has recognized that we're now coming into a geopolitical conflict between what I would call the sort of nationalist right as, well, they call it the nationalist right. I just call it sort of the 1980s, common sense. Yeah, exactly. Sort of non-woke, moderate conservatism Sort of non-woke, moderate conservatism that doesn't believe in the suite of third way, you know, leftism or whatever third way, you know, leftism or whatever liberalism that they want to approve. Ya it’s, it's Reaganism, and it's got a lot of Richard Nixon in it. Yes, and so, so I think the United States has recognized it. Current, the current administration in Canada, Britain and France and so forth are on, are opposed to a lot of what the United States believes in, in terms of the values. And I think a lot of people in this sort And I think a lot of people in this sort of conservative nationalist, conservative movement feel that the Left in Canada, UK movement feel that the Left in Canada, UK and elsewhere are illiberal and that the conservatives are the, are the liberals. The Left doesn't see it that way. So we have a battle between what I would call sort of the social liberals, who are really quite illiberal, they're against free speech and a lot of other things. They believe in universalism, pumping in monster amounts of immigration, not just monster amounts of immigration, not just multiculturalism, which many approve of, but multiculturalism, which many approve of, but mass changes in how the society functions. I know our new ambassador to the United States I know our new ambassador to the United States believes in 100 million people in Canada, largely brought in through open-door immigration, complete demographic rewrite of Canada. But they sell this, the problem is, and the thing that people are missing, I think, in the media is the Left and the multiculturalists, which I used to kind of be, but am concerned about now. They're selling this on the basis of economics, which frankly is stupid in an era that we're going to finally have robots doing everything. So robots are doing all the labour, So robots are doing all the labour, and we're taxing the robots. I don't know that we need millions and millions of people, half of whom are going millions of people, half of whom are going on welfare, because a lot of them are going on welfare when they arrive in here and in the UK, and also, there's a recent study. the UK, and also, there's a recent study. So, you know, I think, I think, I'm not saying all immigrants go on welfare, but saying all immigrants go on welfare, but there's a there's a there's a lot of people when they arrive in all of the Western countries that rely on government assistance. And that's a problem. So, you know, but they're selling it on economic necessity and that the Canadian economy would collapse without monster immigration and ignoring the example of Japan, which did decline, but it didn't collapse. And I think that they're ignoring the honest fact, which is this is part of a liberal international, a modification of the liberal international order, not the liberal international international order, not the liberal international order that my father and others suffered for in order that my father and others suffered for in World War II, which was quite liberal and they believed in free speech, and you know, but a new kind of universalism where there's no borders. This is part of the theory. This goes back to the 60s, this universalist idea that there are no borders and that all citizens of all nations are equally entitled to live wherever they want. People are starting to notice that it only seems to apply to European, Western European and North American European sort of previously European nations. sort of previously European nations. I'm not, I don't want to sound like a white supremacist here. I'm just saying that they used to be I'm just saying that they used to be more European, and they've changed. And it's fascinating to, I think to many people it's been noticed that this universalism only seems to apply to rich Western countries. Exactly. Exactly. It doesn't apply to anybody else. Yeah, exactly. And again, not trying to sound And again, not trying to sound racist, but it particularly applies to white males over, of any age. I mean, this is in Canada, a lot of Canadians have never taken a gander at the Charter of Rights or the Constitution. But as we know, affirmative action is enshrined in the Charter of Rights, Section 15B, part in the Charter of Rights, Section 15B, part of something that needs to be jettisoned. But I completely agree with you. But I completely agree with you. This, this, this rules-based thing that he talked about at Davos, is it's a fantasy. It’s, It's allowing statists and technocrats to continue to run the world. And finally, I think, Main Street is getting it. Canada, once again, is slow to the mark because, unfortunately, we've had a population that's been asleep for 30 years. And certainly in the last 11, where they've seen a decline in the standard of living, seen a decline in the standard of living, and they've refused to even recognize it. It's elbows-up time, realizing that the Canadian economy doesn't in fact, produce anything. Canada is in a quagmire; it's sliding, it's approaching, I would assume, in some regards, I think it's already gone over the cliff. You're right about immigration. Productivity is where our problems lie, and Productivity is where our problems lie, and technology is taking care of a lot of that. But again, we look at the over-regulated But again, we look at the over-regulated state, and Canada is the poster child. Getting back to what's going on in Iran, it is absolutely not morally justifiable to be against this war. I think if I'm going to criticize Donald Trump at all, he should have read On War by Clausewitz. at all, he should have read On War by Clausewitz. And what he, Clausewitz talks And what he, Clausewitz talks about the trinity of war. It's the army, the state, and the people. What I think Trump, where he has failed, and I think they will work their way through this, because I think this thing will be over in the next few weeks, is that he should have invoked the national will. I think if there was ever a case for a president to walk into Congress and actually declare war, I think this is it. This is not picking off Maduro. This is a country, this is a government, this is a theocratic group of terrorists this is a theocratic group of terrorists that need to be consigned to the ash bin of that need to be consigned to the ash bin of history, and that is done by force of arms. And invoking the national will is something that I think he should have done. The Canadian sense, we have, I mean, it's a joke. I've talked about before, there are more auditors in Canada Revenue than there are infantry in Canada. than there are infantry in Canada. We are incapable of actually mounting We are incapable of actually mounting any significant military mission. What did you think about Mr. Carney's glaring omission to not inform the Canadian people that Canadian troops were in fact, under fire at a base in Kuwait? I mean, there's such a disconnect now between the media and the public, between the political class and the elites and the public. Everything is, I'm getting cynical as I get older, but everything is about politics all the time. Right. So whether you're honest or not, whether you disclose something or not, you take you disclose something or not, you take whatever, whether you take a position on an international action or war or not, whether you contribute troops or not, all of this seems to go through the lens of political expediency. That's the generation we live in now, they're completely rudderless, they have no values, everything's about political success and nothing else. Same with the media, the entire media in the English-speaking world cares about nothing else but making sure that Trump doesn't win in the midterms. With the exception of Fox and the guy that supported it. So everything they're reporting about So everything they're reporting about international relations, about the war in Iran, everything is all about that. in Iran, everything is all about that. And whether they report economic data correctly, all about that. Whether they report positively or negatively on Carney's activities, developing pipelines, whatever his position, reporting on the, on the troops coming under fire, it's all put through the lens by the media of whether this will help re-elect the Liberals or not. If it doesn't help the Liberals, the media in Canada will not really pile on. So, but with respect to going back to Iran So, but with respect to going back to Iran for a second, another interesting thing about the Carney position and the speech in Davos the Carney position and the speech in Davos and how this is playing out in the war that I wanted to touch on was that, you know, so, so we have this liberal international order that has a suite of values attached to it, human rights, requirements, the duty to intervene, et cetera, the responsibility to intervene. And you know, so now we have a country that massacres 35, at least 35,000 young men, mostly in a few days. young men, mostly in a few days. By any stretch, that would, given all By any stretch, that would, given all of the other features involved here, the attacks on Americans over the years, the imminent threat that they will get nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them. It's an emergent situation on that basis alone. And yet our international, quote, partners can't marshal the wherewithal to put aside their political differences with Trump and actually get involved. They petulantly stay out of it. They petulantly stay out of it. Now this may be because domestically, politically, it's not popular with certain politically, it's not popular with certain constituencies now, the Muslim constituencies and so forth within their, within their countries. Again, irrelevant. That's not how you make values-based decisions. But, but in any event, so you've got Carney saying we're going to a new multipolar world, and this is an example of it. This was an example of France and Britain and Germany, and others, for a brief moment, pushing back and trying to establish some independence in their foreign policy. independence in their foreign policy. Now think about what that means. It means it's more important to them to use this horrific and emergent situation to use this horrific and emergent situation to establish a new trajectory for international relations in a more multipolar world. And the other interesting thing I find is last night they all caved, which is what I have been predicting. In other words, that yes, the United States is the hegemonic power. No, they haven't invested in their militaries, as you point out, sufficiently to, you as you point out, sufficiently to, you know, to create this multipolar world. If you want to be a pole, you gotta have an army. If you want to be a pole, you gotta have an army. And you gotta have investments in the military. They haven't invested in being a pole; they're not a pole, they'd like to be, and last night they proved they aren't. They all came like dogs on a leash, and now they're gonna help protect the Strait of Hormuz. Germany, France, Britain. Japan, I think, had a more principled view. I think Japan does this out of character. I think Britain did it because it had to. The Japanese Prime Minister is absolutely fantastic. As I do with the Italian Prime Minister, As I do with the Italian Prime Minister, they are, they’re showing bigger cojones than Mr. Carney any day. And Mr. Starmer is a joke. The Germans too. The Germans too. think there's a bit of principle in there too, in that decision. I'm only basing this on listening to things that their leaders have said. And I feel like, given the history between Germany and the Jewish people, and I think just the character of the leader. I'm not as sure about, I mean, France is sort of a, has ever since the 70s when France, you know, was trying to, trying to become communist and stay out of NATO and so forth. I mean, France has always had delusions of I mean, France has always had delusions of grandeur in the Middle East, and it's sort of a nostalgia for its old colonial possessions. a nostalgia for its old colonial possessions. It's a joke. Well, they haven't won a war on their own since they put a schoolgirl in charge of their army. they put a schoolgirl in charge of their army. So, it says it all. Although, and Macron sending the de Gaulle and the Navy, it initially looks pretty good. If they deploy and actually help force the Straits, that's fine. I love the fact that the Americans deployed A-10s to go after speedboats this morning. So, that won't leave much to pick up. So, that won't leave much to pick up. They were gonna mothball those. Oh no, those are titanium bathtubs Oh no, those are titanium bathtubs with a big 30 millimetre Gatling gun. They've got to keep that thing going. Interesting, on the international topic, and then we'll just touch on Canada. Reading the Telegraph this morning, and they were talking about Russia suffering its biggest one-day loss in Ukraine. And it was Ukrainian drones taking out Russian forces. What I noted was that they talked about the Russians using horses to transport kit and personnel. Shades of 1812. I don't think things go well for Mr. Putin and hopefully this brief lifting of sanctions on oil is very brief because I think, though I never believed as a historian you could bleed out the Russians, I think that's exactly what is happening in Ukraine and I think we may be close to two great victories for those who believe in freedom and that sort of stuff. believe in freedom and that sort of stuff. What say you? It's actually, I was gonna It's actually, I was gonna say shades of 1939 and 40. A lot of people don't realize, I know you do, that much of the German army in World War two was still relying on horse, horses. It wasn't all blitzkrieg with top, top tanks. It was still significantly, you know, used horses. But, you know, I've always thought that it was possible to bleed out the Russians, and I always, I always saw this as frankly the least confrontational way of frankly the least confrontational way of dealing with Russia, much like we did in Afghanistan, you know, Charlie Wilson's War. Afghanistan, you know, Charlie Wilson's War. I think that, you know, if the, if the West could get itself together and, and, and actually put Ukraine first, it wouldn't have been difficult for the Europeans, the Western Europeans and the rich countries of Europe to both demoralize and economically overwhelm the Russians who have a small, far smaller economy, but they of course, Europe's been at war with Russia since 2014 and his dilly-dally and only barely now begun to react. That's the reality. That's the reality. 2014 was when Russia crossed the border into Ukraine and signalled to Europe that the Ukraine and signalled to Europe that the old liberal international order was over. I mean, really, you could argue that it was the bombing of Chechnya because it was nine days after the bombing of Chechnya, the entry of tanks into Chechnya when Moscow tried to run a coup on the Chechen government. Nine days later, is when Clinton ripped up the new, the new security order discussions that were going on between Russia and Europe. That sort of marks the turning point. And you know, so I mean, the West has known And you know, so I mean, the West has known that Russia was a problem for a long time. Europe has known, but they keep buying the gas. Europe has known, but they keep buying the gas. Another interesting development that could really pressure Russia is there's an election coming up in Hungary in April in which Fidesz and Viktor Orbán look to be on the ropes. Now, their voting system is very much rigged in favour of Fidesz. I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right, I hope I am. But it's rigged in favour of Orbán. It's rigged in favour, it's as, it’s as, I would argue it's not quite a semi-democracy. Maybe that's overstating it, but it's the system is rigged in such a way. And it was rigged by Orbán. It was rigged by his party. So it's there on what I would So it's there on what I would call the nationalist right. They're not quite part of the New Right, They're not quite part of the New Right, Nazi, fascist sort of elements in certain parts of Europe, but they're on the New Right. They have been for a long, long time. And that could be a sort of a bit of a major blow to Russia because Orbán could lose in April. Sort of dicey. The other party's way ahead. We're talking over 10 % ahead. But in their system, it's rigged in Favor of Orbán, so that might not be enough. But if it is enough and Orbán is removed, many people realize, and I would say it's fair, that Orbán is a bit of a fifth columnist for Russia. Orbán is a bit of a fifth columnist for Russia. I don't know that Fidesz is, and I don't know that Hungary, Hungarians are, but if you go that Hungary, Hungarians are, but if you go back and look at Orbán's past, he was in the Communist Youth back in the day before the free, Hungary gained freedom from the Soviet Union. So there's these, these older baby boomer-type age politicians, I'm not sure they're real Hungarian patriots. And they sort of pitch their arguments in favour of keeping the oil flowing from Russia to Hungary as part of neutrality, but I don't buy that. I think they, I think they're a little bit in the pocket. They're a bit Russophile. They're a bit Russophile. So we could replace Orbán with a better Hungarian patriot, someone who's still on the Hungarian patriot, someone who's still on the conservative side of the ledger, still not entirely pro-Europe, but someone who's a bit more pro-Europe and certainly not pro-Russia. And they will cooperate and stop blocking the European efforts to destroy Russia's economy. And that will be very painful. A greed. And it is, well, we were there together. What a beautiful country Hungary is. Quickly turning to home, Mr. Carney seems to be on the precipice of procuring a majority by fundamentally undemocratic means. The latest floorwalker in Nunavut with clear latest floorwalker in Nunavut with clear ties to Liberal largesse is the latest. ties to Liberal largesse is the latest. But what do you think about, about, are we having an election this year? I know the Conservative Party is looking for candidates, and no, I'm not allowed to run, and I don't know if you want to take that pay cut. But it's, again, looking at Canadians sitting on their ass and picturing the US as the great, the great enemy, while their very democracy slips through their fingers. democracy slips through their fingers. What do you think about the floorwalking and, or the floor crossing and and, or the floor crossing and Mr. Carney's tactics in general? I think it's morally indefensible by the I think it's morally indefensible by the floor crossers, and frankly, and I've seen this many times; you and I have both seen this many times in our lives. So, you know, in terms of the Canadian parliamentary system and Canadian history, this is normal. It's happened before in tight minority governments where there's just a few seats needed to make a majority. That's when it gets, that's when the pressure That's when it gets, that's when the pressure really builds, and the incentives really build. Having said that, in the past, when Having said that, in the past, when people have crossed floors for whatever incentives, you know, brief notoriety, a promise of a junior cabinet position. Historically, people who are turncoats don't usually have a very long or good career in politics. Nobody, nobody's going to run for leader or advance their career having switched parties. The only one I’ve, I think Winston Churchill is the only one who ever did it. You know, they're being on the, on the what I guess would be the considered by Liberals, the far right of the Liberal Party, by having been a former Tory, isn't exactly going to endear you to the real Liberals. Or same thing with the NDP. If you're an NDPer, which means you're a socialist, and now you've switched to Liberal, I mean, who's going to run you as leader? Because then you basically, they understand they've got an NDP leader. understand they've got an NDP leader. And nobody wants that; they want to be in the middle, the Liberals want to win. But I think it's horrible. And I don't think it's appropriate. I mean, your voters voted for very, there's a lot of literature in Canadian political science that the voters are not voting for the local candidate. So that's BS. The local candidates actually in my, they have the legal right, but no moral right to switch parties. Exactly. The voters do not vote for the local candidate. There's tons of data on this. Lots of research by political scientists Lots of research by political scientists at York University and other places. So, the reality in our first-past-the-post, you know, parliamentary system, is a bit of, it's, well, I guess the myth, the myth of the first-past-the-post system and myth of the first-past-the-post system and how it operates and whether it's fair and reasonable, and, you know, who and what reasonable, and, you know, who and what people are voting for is not always true. And I think it's, I don't think we're gonna have an election. I think the Liberals will secure a majority and, you know, if people drop off, they'll secure other floor crossers, and they'll, you know, wiggle along for the full five. If they secure the majority, my fear is that when, what I've seen of Pierre Poilievre lately makes me somewhat inspired. He went on the Rogan podcast. I thought it went extremely well. He's, he is enunciating on the right points. I still think he needs a media strategy. I mean, you don't have to talk to Rosie Barton or that other the bald, quisling who is on Power & Politics. But engaging with some of the mainstream But engaging with some of the mainstream media is something I think he has to do. He unfortunately has to win over the Karen vote He unfortunately has to win over the Karen vote because I think that's been solidly Liberal, and listening to people talk about, like when you ask them, what do think about Pierre? I don't feel right about him. Well, feelings got us Justin Trudeau. So I agree with Pierre's positions. I think they've been principled. I think he's improving. I hope he, you know, reads the story of Robert the Bruce and understands that persistence eventually pays off. But I wouldn't be surprised if we have, I But I wouldn't be surprised if we have, I mean, even if he procures this majority, mean, even if he procures this majority, I would not be surprised if we do have an election in the next 12 months. And I'm actually somewhat hopeful that Canadians may finally, you know, come out of this slumber and realize that things are not going well in Canada. things are not going well in Canada. Mr. Carney has nothing to show, not a thing to show for one year of jet-setting. thing to show for one year of jet-setting. I mean, deals with Qatar, that's wonderful, but our primary trading partner, 80% of our economy, is based on the United States. I think it's high time, and I really like what Pierre is doing, getting down in the United States talking about, he's not trying to undercut Carney, but trying to talk to Canadians, Americans about tariffs, to the right audience so that we can show, the right, put the right face forward. can show, the right, put the right face forward. But I'm pleased with what he's doing. I don't see anyone in the offing. I think he got a great mandate coming out of that convention. But I still think they need a little bit more training on media. They need to, they need to believe in winning. Occasionally, they behave like controlled opposition. What do you think about the prospect for Pierre and the party? Well, I'm a big fan of Pierre Poilievre. I've met him several times. I met him before he was the leader. He came out to support Todd McCarthy, who is now a cabinet minister in Ontario and doing very well, local Durham lad. And, you know, one thing about Pierre that I think, there's a couple of fascinating things. think, there's a couple of fascinating things. One is, he is incredibly agile on his feet compared to most politicians. feet compared to most politicians. And as you know, I was a candidate, and I've debated a few, and some of them are dumb. Pierre's not dumb. Pierre's smart as any trial lawyer that I've met. He's very quick on his feet. He's funny, he's charming. He's not some ultra-right ideologue. I mean, he's a conservative. He's on the, he's on the populist side of the ledger, which is actually, to some people, they think that's more conservative than some red Tory from Toronto, but that doesn't make red Tory from Toronto, but that doesn't make him a far-right ideologue, it's just that, those are just pejorative labels put on people. those are just pejorative labels put on people. He's very practical and sensible, and if you listen to him, what he's most concerned about now are workers. He gets it. I am too. That's where I'm at philosophically. I'm not worried about the rich lawyers and doctors. I got, I got enough dough. I don't want to give it away, but I think we need to all, all parties need to worry about what's going on with the working class. about what's going on with the working class. I don't like the word class frankly, because I'm not that classy myself, but, because I'm not that classy myself, but, but people who are maybe not sitting on a stack of university degrees like you are. Who, and or who, you know, maybe don't have the resources to survive whatever's coming next with robots and AI, and Pierre gets it. And I was really gratified to see him on Joe Rogan, where that was his theme. His theme was, " What do we do with workers? How do we fix the crisis in housing?” Which despite in many metrics, people are doing better now than they ever have in terms of better now than they ever have in terms of entertainment, use of cars, the amount of makeup they have, the amount of access to cheap clothing, you name it, a lot of metrics. cheap clothing, you name it, a lot of metrics. But when it comes to housing, they're not. So he understands the need to So he understands the need to address the needs of workers. There's been no progress on housing. There's been no progress on housing. They haven't gone after the regulatory impasses that create, or the blocks, the bulwarks that prevent houses from being built at reasonably affordable rates. I totally agree. I think the populist message is fine. I think that the Conservative Party's natural base is, is folks who believe in freedom and empowerment and aspiration. freedom and empowerment and aspiration. And that is the lower middle class. And that is the lower middle class. That's the old NDP voter. This is Thatcherism. And that's, that’s what I think Pierre is on to. I think talking about immigration in a sensible way, he's got to lead with it. I believe if that had been the primary focus of the last, last Tory campaign that he would be sitting as Prime Minister right now because, as we talked earlier in today's program, immigration is, is insane. Canada needs to get back to the point system Canada needs to get back to the point system and bring in folks who are going to be accretive and bring in folks who are going to be accretive to Canada, that follow Canadian values. And that's not blocking intersections in Toronto and Montreal or shooting up synagogues. We need to get back to basics, and Pierre needs, I think he's found his voice, but realized the foundation to a Conservative victory the foundation to a Conservative victory goes down Main Street and avoids Bay Street. Yeah, and I think you're right on the money. And you said something really important earlier, which was about the need for the Conservatives, in particular, Pierre Poilievre and others, to come up with a very strong message for women, for young women in particular, but all women in Canada. As much as they gravitate by a factor of 20-something or 24% towards the left, it's 20-something or 24% towards the left, it's almost by default because there's nobody trying to articulate a vision for women about trying to articulate a vision for women about what's in it for them, for voting Conservative. For example, is it in women's interest to build up a stronger pool of men? Not a patriarchy, but would women not agree that men are falling, men are failing? The Canadian men of today are not their fathers and grandfathers. I'm not saying all of them, but men are in crisis. Anybody who's got any kind of common sense can see that our boys and men are in deep crisis. see that our boys and men are in deep crisis. Women are on the other hand, are, you know, in terms of graduation rates and economic advance are doing very well. But the problem is, in terms of the lifestyle, the like, the way that people want to live, can they form families? Can they find competent men worth marrying if they want to get married? Can they afford a house when they do? There is a lot to be offered on the conservative side of the ledger. If you message it correctly. If you message it correctly. Same thing with immigration. We grew up in the seventies. We grew up in the seventies. I know you, and you know me, and you know that we mostly grew up in very, shall we say, diverse backgrounds where we were the sort of the odd man out. And that informs us of who we are friends with and who we hang around with, and how we see Canada. So you and I grew up immersed and embracing multiculturalism, but, you know, in a real sense, in a granular sense of, you know, hanging out with folks and partying. But, there's a difference between embracing But, there's a difference between embracing diversity and multiculturalism, and having diversity and multiculturalism, and having it run so far afield that the Canadians, and I'm a descendant of it, my parents had accents, they were immigrants, so I'm second gen, but the settler crowd, the Canadians are feeling like they're being, you know, basically they're no longer gonna be, you know, I guess, a majority in their own home, which is making them feel xenophobic. And so I think the antidote to xenophobia And so I think the antidote to xenophobia is to have an honest conversation just about the levels of immigration. just about the levels of immigration. And I think people will be very surprised. I think a lot of immigrants would agree that they also believe that xenophobia is an uncomfortable thing, that it's not good, it's a bit toxic all the way around for everybody. They aren't looking to this, white replacement, great replacement theory of the far right, is a reaction. of the far right, is a reaction. And I don't think it's positive or healthy. And I think that a conversation needs to be had. And I think that a conversation needs to be had. And I think the Conservatives need to find the right message on that. And I think it's a message that, you know, people of all backgrounds can support. I think there's an understanding that just, you know, pumping in, you know, increasing the population by 2% a year, whatever, 3% or whatever the intention is, is a bit excessive, you know, for any community. And it creates, it kind of creates xenophobia, which nobody wants. Exactly. Well, I think we've solved all the problems again for the world, and we'll reconvene in again for the world, and we'll reconvene in a couple of weeks, see what's coming along. But hopefully next time we talk, perhaps there's a new government forming in Tehran which doesn't slaughter its people and respects the great Persian traditions and is ready to join the community of states again. And perhaps Mr. Putin is yet closer to creating the Archduchy of Muscovy. And maybe Mr. Carney will have something to show for all his travels. But until then, stay tuned. But until then, stay tuned. Remember, Leviathan must be stopped. Remember, Leviathan must be stopped. Our freedoms are worth fighting for, and we've got to do it every day as individuals, as families, as proud Canadians. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks Trevor, and know you're the guy to stop the Leviathan. T-shirts are available.