how do i say "horror novels these days are too woke" without sounding like a right winger. what i mean is: this one is about a woman serial killer who kills Bad Men, that one is about ~anticapitalist activists~, this one is ~queer~, that one is about *spins wheel* someone dealing with the ghosts of their immigrant roots, all of them are about intergenerational traumaaaaa. okay. cool. but is it good though. is it fucking scary
something something, losing the ability to convey horror through abstraction, through metaphor, through symbolism, through allegory, through raw unexamined un-psychiatrized feeling. if the real horror is.... dun dun dun! the patriarchy then i just feel preached to. don't use fiction as a vehicle for Saying Something About Society. write with total vulnerability and then see what it says. it will be probably be far more interesting and horrifying than what if the monster was uhh my mom's abuse or whatever. this brand of new horror writers are all so terrified of actually disclosing anything about themselves. it's like if an instagram infographic performance was a mediocre contemporary novel
Do yourselves a massive favor: practice asking for help BEFORE it's an emergency.
I am a social worker. I have worked in community mental health and in home-based healthcare. And it is much, much easier for me to help you when the situation you're in is not yet a full-blown crisis.
"I'm out of money and have been for a while and now I haven't eaten for three days." This is a crisis. A crisis where I'm likely going to have to put you in the car and take you to the nearest food bank--except food banks require appointments now, and the next opening is in four days, so you're staring down the barrel of a week with no food. That's obviously not going to work, so, let's call eight different food banks until we've found one that has an appointment the next day...except it's in the neighboring county and you can't drive. So now I'm calling your doctor to try and brow beat an emergency plan of care update out of him so I can come back the next day and drive you to the food bank. And we haven't even started on the "constantly broke" part of the problem.
"I don't think I have enough food to make it to my next paycheck. I have (xyz) in my house and that will only last until (date)." This is bad, but not a crisis. We have a few days. We make you an appointment at the food bank and contact your brother to make sure you have a ride there. Now we can spend our visit talking about what bills are causing you the most problems and make a jump on a long-term solution, like looping in a community action agency to cover your utilities and getting you an OTC card from Medicaid to cover some of your groceries every month.
"I'm ten months behind on rent, and my landlord said I have a week to get out, or the cops will throw me out. I don't have the money, and if I get evicted, I have nowhere to go." This is a crisis. Every single thing we do here is going to be some version of a Hail Mary. In Michigan, we have the state emergency relief fund for rent issues, but process time is well over one week. There are community action agencies that we can call to assist you with payment, but they are unlikely to have sufficient funds to cover nearly a year of back rent. We can contact legal aid clinics to try and prevent your landlord from evicting you, but they may look at your case and determine that too much "fault" lies with you. Most likely, I'm going to have to put you in touch with homeless shelters and the public housing office.
"I'm two months behind on rent and I don't think I'll be able to pay next month either." This is bad, but not a crisis. This is solvable. We have time to apply for SER, or put you in contact with community action agencies. We have time to review your finances and see if you qualify for a public housing wait list or other forms of ongoing rental assistance. We have time to talk about a million possible adjustments to try and ease the burden of your rent.
"I am the sole caregiver for my elderly parent who has dementia and is emotionally volatile and fully dependent on me. I have not slept through the night in weeks and I have not had an actual break for over a year. I am having screaming meltdowns multiple times a week and I am threatening self-harm unless someone comes to collect my parent and take over all caregiver duties." This is a crisis. This is a crisis where the ethical code of my profession demands that I call 911 and report the conversation to them. They will likely come to the house and interview you. If they determine your threats were serious, they will have you forcibly committed to a psych ward. Your parent will either be dumped into a random hospital or rehab center, or left in the house on their own. Upon release from your psych hold, you will be expected to resume caregiving duties as though nothing happened. Except, now, adult protective services is actively investigating you, because it was determined you may be an ongoing danger to your parent.
"I am the sole caregiver for my demented parent, and I have not had a break in a couple of weeks, and I feel angry and weepy most of the time." This is bad, but not a crisis. We can get you in touch with volunteer groups for respite, and apply for state funded programs to get more day-to-day help, and talk about long-term planning for when the dementia symptoms get worse. We can get you the phone numbers for crisis lines and enroll you in a support group.
Obviously, you can ask for help at any point. Don't use this an excuse to never ask for help. If you always wait until it's a crisis, fine, you have free will. But you are ALLOWED to ask for help BEFORE you're in a blind panic, and it is always easier to get help when you aren't screaming and sobbing because you think your life is over.
republicans are deeply deeply unpopular right now, and doing everything they can to gain every bit of leverage going into the midterms this fall. These next couple months expect a lot more overreach and even more fascistic displays of power.
Make no mistake. They're panicking because these elections threaten to wipe out the conservative project for good if the following congress pursues a "Nuremberg 2" as some figures have put it. If you're in the US your job over the next couple months is to not panic, to get involved in local community and advocacy orgs, call and write to your representatives (or campaigning representatives) that you want accountability for this administration.
The gutting of the Voting Rights Act along with overturning years of precedent in other Supreme Court decisions like allowing last-minute redistricting in Alabama are happening because they're scared and they're flailing. And if they're scared, that means they know they can lose everything. Get involved and prove them right
"can't believe Hungary is celebrating a centrist-conservative" low-key choke on your tongue, you have no idea about what the status of the left here is (non fucking existent for complicated reasons) so yes, we will take one fucking step back towards the center after a far-right asshole, thanks!!!!!!!
"there's no left-wing party in the hungarian parliament" okay so we didn't have a minister of health. did you know that? no minister of education either. since 2010, yeah. we have, like, maybe three independent press outlets. they've continuously extended the emergency rule of law thats been in effect since 2020, allowing orbán to rule by decree. if he had won again we would have been kicked out of the eu and the country's already struggling economy would have collapsed like a house of cards. i can empathize with my fellow hungarians having mixed feelings about a right leaning centrist with allegations of dv still hanging over his head but everyone else should shut up foreverrrr
Sorry for dragging your tags out in the open, but as a Hungarian, what you just said is extremely important! There is a US cultural hegemony in the world and when young Hungarian leftists start to speak about Hungarian politics as if it were the same as US politics that's a frightening experience. Performative activism, the role of victimhood and the látványos jóemberkedés will get us nowhere, we actually have to stand up for ourselves and put the work in, both in Hungary and in the US.
the old boomer who "doesn't get the gays" but still votes blue every election is still a better ally to you than every well-spoken, woke millennial who says all the right shit but didn't vote because they "didn't like either option"
the lady who voted for trump but has changed her mind since and is calling her senator every day is a better ally to you than anyone very politely apologizing for how awful things are and not doing anything to actually help
This phrase has already entered my vocabulary re: media criticism where like. The viewer has a concrete view of what they expect a story to be based on the tropes and cliches they're used to seeing together, and when that doesn't happen, they judge it as a failed depiction of what they assumed it was going to be instead of judging it as what it actually is.
"This show is problematic because the hero didn't kill the villain at the end": When does he steal the bread?
"These two characters who were close friends throughout the series don't kiss at the end! What the fuck?": When does he steal the bread?
"This feels like it's missing a conclusion! Like, the protagonist does bad stuff and because of a critical decision he makes as a result of his major character flaws, meets tragedy in the end! Where's the part where he learns better and brings is love back from the dead and becomes a good guy and gets a happy ending?": When does he steal the fucking bread??
So, you know how certain Christian missionaries are trained to act in a very obnoxious way, so that most people they preach to will reject them outright, so they feel like the world hates them for being Christian and they can only be friends with fellow Christians? You know that thing?
I think as activists, we sometimes need to stop and ask ourselves whether we're acting like those missionaries. I think this type of behavior is a little more ingrained into our society than some of us realize, and some of us have internalized it without realizing what it's actually meant to do.
OP I know that this is probably a different direction than you were going, but genuinely this advice would do so so much to help people not fall into secular political cults.
A lot of high control groups use this tactic to isolate their members. It’s absolutely not just evangelizing Christians. New age wellness cults often encourage their members to make outlandish and offensive accusations regarding the mental and physical health of other people or their children, because they know that the backlash their members receive will reinforce the idea that the “mainstream” simply has no room for people who like crystals and essential oils. White supremacist cults will seed the vocabulary of new recruits with Nazi dog whistles that fly over those recruits heads, specifically so that they will get clocked as possible neo-Nazis and shunned by anyone who might offer them another perspective and help them to get out before it’s too late. And a lot of left-leaning political cults strongly encourage members to share their views in the most inflammatory ways possible, and then say “you see? everyone outside of this small circle is evil and cannot be relied on” when, inevitably, that produces bad results.
Sometimes I think that activists fall into these patterns completely accidentally, either because they were raised in culturally Christian evangelical environments and never unpacked it, or else because they just aren’t any good at approaching things in a non-inflammatory way and no one’s shown them how.
…But sometimes, these structures emerge in activist circles because those circles are legitimately becoming high control groups.
I think some things to watch out for especially in this regard are:
Are you being directed to behave in an extremely hostile and alienating way? (even if it’s by someone who you trust!)
Does the group you are in immediately shut down any conversation about the effectiveness of an antagonistic strategy? In particular, do they shut that conversation down using in-group stock phrases?
Is experiencing harsh rejection seen as something of a rite of passage?
Do you receive more validation from the group you are in after you have been rejected by someone outside the group than at any other time?
Have you ever been concerned that the antagonistic strategy you are using hurt someone you cared about, only to be quickly advised by members of the group that that person was toxic and that you should actually completely cut them out of your life?
These to me are all pretty significant red flags about the group in question, whatever the specific thing that brings people together there is. If you start noticing them in a group that you are a part of, be that an in-person activist circle or a Discord server or anything in between, take a step back and seriously consider the possibility that the good thing that you joined is turning into something different, and possibly dangerous.
In the words of Jonestown survivor Deborah Layton, “Nobody joins a cult. You join a self-help group, a religious movement, a political organization. They change so gradually, by the time you realize you’re entrapped – and almost everybody does – you can’t figure a safe way back out.”
this is a pdf detailing the BITE model of authoritarian control, a method for determining whether or not you're in a cult.
even if you feel confident you are not and have never been in a cult, it's a good idea to familiarize yourself with the signs, just in case one begins to sneak up on you in the future.
Ok, I actually want to talk about this for a moment.
Jonestown, one of the most infamous cults in history, with a mass suicide / mass murder that left more than 900 people dead of cyanide poisoning, hundreds of whom were children… was a leftist political cult. That fact is an unambiguous and completely undebatable matter of historical record.
This isn’t a footnote in the story of Jonestown, and it isn’t a weird anti-leftist gotcha either. Jonestown attracted people to their cause with anti-segregation and anti-poverty activist work, and they did actual, meaningful good for those causes. The People’s Temple was a leftist org, unambiguously. They created mutual aid networks for food aid, and rent assistance, and job placement services, and clothing donations, and winter heating. They leaned heavily on the Indianapolis Human Rights Commission in order to push desegregation, and led sit-ins and boycotts and protests. They participated in significant voter registration efforts. They led the fight against the eviction of tenants from San Francisco's International Hotel.
People joined The People’s Temple because it was a good thing when they joined it. They didn’t start out as brainwashed cultists, and they didn’t gravitate towards the leadership of Jim Jones out of masochism, or inherent submissiveness, or a perverse love of creeping authoritarianism. They fell in line under Jim Jones because he’d built a community that was genuinely helping people, and was advancing a political cause that seemed worth fighting. They followed Jim Jones because he earned their trust.
Jim Jones then used the trust and the social capital that he had gained from all of the above in order to elevate himself to the status of a messianic figure, and abuse and profit off of his followers. Slowly but surely, he boiled the frog. It was all good – and then it was mostly good – and then, well there was some abuse, but it wasn’t that bad, and it wasn’t really his fault – and then there was a lot of abuse, but the outside world would destroy them if given the chance, so wasn’t it the lesser of the two evils? And then, eventually, it got so bad that hundreds of people poisoned themselves and their children at his command, and murdered everyone in the compound who refused and resisted.
Your cause of choice is not immune from abusers taking advantage of it!
It doesn’t matter if you’re right. It doesn’t matter if your cause is just. It does not matter if your good thing really is a good thing, because there is always the possibility that it will one day be co-opted by a monster. And if the fact that it started good is enough for you to ignore that gradual, subtle change, you could end up in a truly horrible situation.
One of my best friends in undergrad got sucked into a cult. Years later, we talked about it, and he told me something that I’ll never forget which is, it’s only when you look all the way back at things that they seem crazy. You start off with things that are totally normal and innocuous: “we’re stronger together”; “oppression is bad”; “you can accomplish more if you believe in yourself”; “empathy is important and we should all try to bring more of it into our lives”; etc. Then, you move to something that’s just a little step away from that. And then again. And then again. And then again. But it never feels like a big jump, because it’s not! A -> Z is crazy, but A -> B wasn’t, and B -> C wasn’t, and C -> D wasn’t, and…
This friend was smart, and rational, and independent, and normal, and by the time he and his wife left, they’d gone from just thinking that we should all practice more emotional mindfulness, to being terrified that leaving the cult and the cult leader would literally kill them, via the cult leader having magical powers.
If your only analysis is “Where I started was good, and no single step since then has been crazy” that is utterly insufficient to keep you safe.
“This can’t possibly be a cult, because when I joined it was a leftist political org and there’s never been a single instance where it suddenly changed” is literally the exact logic that kept people in Jonestown until it was too late.
my parents were in a leftist political cult. in fact, my parents met because my mom recruited my dad into it. it was lyndon larouche's labor committee, in the 70s. they were in it for a decade and then left when it started to pivot to the right and become more extremist in its conspiracy theories and violent in its practices. but when they joined, it was a marxist political movement. most of the members were highly educated, highly skilled new york intellectuals. most of them left eventually and many stayed friends afterwards, and a lot of former members had children right after leaving (including my parents) because they weren't allowed to while they were still in. growing up, the other former members and their families were like a weird extended family, cousins but not quite. and i didn't really understand what it was until i was older. both of my parents, and all the other former members i've known, are brilliant, accomplished, educated leftists with their hearts in the right place and impeccable ideals. all this to say, if my parents instilled any single lesson in me as a kid, it was "don't join anything" lol. but more importantly, i saw firsthand that no one is immune! the right group at the right time with the right message being pitched to you by a person you trust can get past even the most skeptical mind.
He was the most progressive and legislatively successful president since LBJ and the only reasons his reforms did not last were because 1) SCOTUS is 6-3 conservative because Hillary lost in 2016 and 2) Harris lost in 2024 and Trump immediately dismantled them
When I was younger I was very right-wing. I mean…very right-wing. I won’t go into detail, because I’m very deeply ashamed of it, but whatever you’re imagining, it’s probably at least that bad. I’ve taken out a lot of pain on others; I’ve acted in ignorance and waved hate like a flag; I’ve said and did things that hurt a lot of people.
There are artefacts of my past selves online – some of which I’ve locked down and keep around to remind me of my past sins, some of which I’ve scrubbed out, some of which are out of my grasp. If I were ever to become famous, people could find shit on me that would turn your stomach.
But that’s not me anymore. I’ve learned so much in the last ten years. I’ve become more open to seeing things through others’ eyes, and reforged my anger to turn on those who harm others rather than on those who simply want to exist. I’ve learned patience and compassion. I’ve learned how to recognise my privileges and listen to others’ perspectives. I’ve learned to stand up for others, how to hear, how to help, how to correct myself. And I learned some startling shit about myself along the way – with all due irony, some of the things I used to lash out at others for are intrinsic parts of myself.
You wouldn’t know what I am now from what I was then. You wouldn’t know what I was then from what I am now.
It distresses me deeply to think of someone dredging up my dark, awful past and treating me as though that furiously hateful person is still me. It distresses me to see others dredging up the past for anyone who has made efforts to become a better person, out of some sick obsession with proving they’re “problematic.”
Purity culture tells you that once someone says or does something, they can never go back on it. That’s a goddamn lie. While it’s true that some remain unrepentant and never change their ways and continue to harm others, it’s important to allow everyone the chance to learn from their mistakes. Saying something ignorant isn’t murder. Please stop treating it that way. Let people grow.
Bruh. No. Listen. Call out what people do now, absolutely. If they haven’t changed, call them out on their record. This post is explicitly not about people who HAVEN’T changed. What this post IS saying is, if someone is making an effort to be a good person, don’t go digging around in their past for evidence that they were once for what they’re now against, or once against what they’re now for, as “proof” of what they “really think,” because people’s opinions and beliefs can change.
The obsession with finding shit in someone’s past and then claiming that a questionable or even sordid past negates all possibility of a good present needs to become extinct. Gold-star activism and purity culture are bullshit and we need to collectively reject the fuck out of them.
If someone has changed for the better, don’t harass them about what they were like before they fuckin’ changed. That’s shitty and it needs to stop.
Gold-star activism and purity culture are bullshit and we need to collectively reject the fuck out of them.
We really need to start asking where this purity bullshit came from. I’m not Christian and was not raised Christian but there has been a lot evidence that much of gold star activism and purity culture originated in of evangelical youth movements and then infiltrated progressive left-wing and center-left politics when those youth left their churches but failed to leave behind the black-n-white puritanical “you’re going to hell if you stray one inch from the righteous path” style of thinking they were taught.
I distinctly remember some conversations I had in the late 00s and very early 2010s with long time social justice activists who were baffled and disturbed by the new crop of youth activists who were practicing something that was decidedly NOT social justice despite stealing that phrase from us.
In the decade and a half that has passed since then, all of this gold-star activism and purity culture has done exactly what I predicted back then: empowered the far-right while sowing division everywhere.
Please read the whole post before voting. Please only vote with a number if you are NOT using an un-updated version of the app.
Please vote and reblog but please do not reblog with a comment in the text of your reblog
When you reblog please tag with the same FIRST tag as the person you're reblogging from
Feel free to reply that's not what I'm looking at and I feel like we need somewhere to yell.
Again, you're going to vote in the poll (answer with the count closest to the bottom of the post you're seeing), you're going to reblog without any text or comments to avoid making a new reblog thread but still check the spread of the post, you're going to tag the post with the same FIRST tag as the person you're reblogging from (feel free to add other tags if you want, but the first one should be exactly the same as the person you're reblogging from).
Vote for the reblog count closest to the bottom of the post you see
Reblog with no text in the body of the reblog
Tag with the same first tag as prev
Thank you for your participation in this experiment!
How many reblogs are there at the bottom of this post?
I kind of do think "this is not who we are, we need to live up to our democratic heritage" is a winning message in a way "america is basically and fundamentally evil. fuck you all" isn't
this framing really winds me up. no knock on mamdani, but a lot of these key changes are the result of a tremendous amount of unsung work by the DWCP and other agencies and lawmakers. he’s not flipping switches that other politicians have refused to touch, he’s arriving at the moment those switches are ready to flip.
there’s just something off about giving all the credit to a charismatic socialist and ignoring the collective work that made these things actually possible, y’know?
This is exactly what bothers me. Changes like this take hundreds of people and thousands of hours of work to pull off. Everyone wants to sneer at the idea that important things take time, effort, and money to implement, and use Mamdani as evidence that everyone who claims it can't be done in 5 minutes with some elbow grease is a scam artist and a liar, but it's flat out not true.
In Mamdani's own speech, he says:
"Under President Biden, the FTC took sweeping action to go after junk fees and they delivered change. Under Chair Leader Khan, they instituted a junk fees rule that they estimated would save Americans 53 million hours a year that they would otherwise spend searching for the true price that they would have to pay, or $11 billion in time savings over a decade. We are going to deliver similar action on behalf of the 8.5 million New Yorkers who call our city home."
Lawmakers and agencies have been working to eliminate junk fees since at LEAST 2023, when Gavin Newsom signed a bill banning junk fees in California. Biden then took up the work with the FTC, targeting hidden fees on live event tickets. Biden went on to work with the CFPB to remove junk fees on banks and credit cards. The CFPB is continuing this work, which you can learn more about over here.
Even with the Chatbot thing -- Mamdani didn't just turn it off. He (and especially his crew) worked up a report to show where funds were being wasted in city government, and then did a presentation on it where he pointed to the specific failure of the Chatbot. He still had to go through a process to prove why he was taking action, it just so happened that this was comparatively quick fix, on account of being one single program running on one single government website.
#stop ignoring the work #it has to get done #there is no loophole #there is no perfect person who can just make things happen #there are only people doing the work #and people continuing the work until it is done (via beezelbubbies)
i used to buy into that online leftist black-and-white Glorious Revolution stuff and what i remember about my mindset at that time. stresses me out tbh. i couldn't see the viability of anything short of full-scale revolution so i constantly felt helpless. i viewed the revolution as necessary to address any and all societal problems, but i was also, privately, terrified of it. i didn't want to die for the cause, but i told myself that if that was what happened when the revolution came it would be worth it, that my blood could move us that much faster toward perfect socialist utopia.
in this mindset, the only useful thing i could do was die. i didn't want to. i wasn't generally suicidal (although i do consider this mindset a form of... abstract suicidal thought). but i believed my life was the only meaningful thing i had to offer.
now i'm a member of a community who values me and values my contributions even if i can't contribute as much as i'd like -- a community that emphasizes that every single good deed matters, every compassionate act changes the world. a community where just showing up is enough.
now i know that i can change so much more while i'm alive than i'd ever be able to as a corpse on a battlefield. i know that if i keep showing up, i will find or someone will show me a way to make a difference. i know that i am valued as more than a hypothetical martyr in some grand final battle. i know that i am missed when i'm gone. i know that the actual work is done by regular people with a goal in mind, and i know that that work is unglamorous. i know the unglamorous work is often the most meaningful and the most fulfilling.
the "revolution or nothing" mindset is rendering my generation hopeless. a very loud portion of gen z now believes the only contribution they have to offer is their life. this belief effectively nullifies a person's capacity to create meaningful change; any action they could take while alive is not worthwhile because it won't fix the world's myriad problems in one fell swoop -- better to burn it all down and yourself with it.
if they weren't actively fucking over the rest of us to feed their own suicidal hopelessness, i'd feel sorry for them.
there's a phenomenon i've observed wherein a person stews in their own misery, hopelessness, anger, fear, to the point that they can no longer fathom that something might exist outside of that, and so they reject any effort to improve their situation because they no longer believe it can be improved.
i am not blaming the people who are in this place. it's a terrifying, dark place to be in, and when you're there it really does feel like it's the only thing that exists. this is the place where people kill themselves.
i think, though, that this phenomenon, scaled up to apply to politics and activism, undergirds so much of what we see from the left now -- the world is dark and terrifying, and in the 24-hour news cycle, social media doomscrolling era we live in it's so so easy to only see the bad, and when you surround yourself with other scared, overwhelmed people, it can form a sort of 2014-tumblr-depression-tag echo chamber where that hopelessness is glorified and lauded and propped up as Correct And Enlightened.
and then they commit hate crimes about it and my sympathy shuts all the way off.
I will always remember something my state-appointed psychiatrist said to me when we first met and I was giving him the run-down of my life so far, and I said "and I'm homeless right now--" and he stopped me.
'I LOVE that you just said that. That you said "right now"!' he said. 'So many of my homeless patients say they're homeless like it's their job, and that means they never see a way out of it.'
'Well,' I said, knowing the statistics. 'Most people are on the street for a year on average. It's not forever, it can't be. nothing is.'
And because I had the audacity, the boldness, to assume I was only homeless right now, I actively kept living like it was a temporary state, like I deserved housing and deserved care and deserved better than i had right now. Because it was only for right now. It wasn't forever. It couldn't be. Nothing is.
I was homeless for about a year and a half. And then I got housed. And right now I live IN a house, with good friends.
But it's only for right now. It isn't forever. It can't be. Nothing is. And whatever's coming next is going to be better! Because I have the audacity, the boldness, to assume it will be and that I deserve it.
And you do too.
But you HAVE to start thinking of misfortune as only being temporary. It's just bad right now. Practise that. "It sucks--right now" "I'm miserable--right now". Just a small thing. But it makes a big difference. It makes all the difference.
Because if you always put "right now" at the end, no matter how miserable you get, you have left a little crack.
For folks that don't know: trees will explode when it's cold because they freeze, the ice freezes the sap- which expands when frozen. The tree literally doesn't have room for it, so it explodes.
So just as a data point, this video - and if you click through to the video, you'll see the OP in the comments saying so - is not of a tree exploding in the cold, it's a tree being blown up with an explosive called tannerite. Trees can crack suddenly when they get very cold, but that's not what this is a video of.
Holy shit, this is a good speech. It's extremely well-written and is both a eulogy to the old world order and a hopeful map for moving forward. He's saying the things people have been whispering up until now.
Read or listen or do both. This feels like a moment that will be important, and you'll want to tell people that *you* remember.
The following is the text of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 20, 2026.
It’s a pleasure — and a duty — to be with you at this turning point for Canada and the world.
I’ll speak today about the rupture in the world order, the end of the pleasant fiction and the dawn of a brutal reality in which great-power geopolitics is unconstrained.
But I submit to you all the same that other countries, in particular middle powers like Canada, aren’t powerless. They have the power to build a new order that integrates our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states.
The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.
Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.
This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable — the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.
It won’t.
So, what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. In it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?
His answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He does not believe it. No one believes it. But he places the sign anyway — to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.
Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.
It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down. For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving — are greatly diminished.
As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.
And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty— sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
This classic risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.
The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls — or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture. Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid.
Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed ‘values-based realism’ — or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights. Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values.
We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for the world as we wish it to be. Canada is calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values. We are prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next. We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.
We are building that strength at home. Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, capital gains and business investment, we have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and we are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond. We are doubling our defence spending by 2030 and are doing so in ways that builds our domestic industries.
We are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed to a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, Europe’s defence procurement arrangements. We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in the last six months. In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, Mercosur.
To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry — different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests. On Ukraine, we are a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security. On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.
Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering. We are working with our NATO allies (including the Nordic Baltic 8) to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, submarines, aircraft, and boots on the ground.
On plurilateral trade, we are championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, creating a new trading block of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we are forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so that the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. On AI, we are cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure we will not ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.
This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on diminished institutions. It is building the coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. And it is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities. Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu. Great powers can afford to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.
But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact. We should not allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield it together.
Which brings me back to Havel. What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”?
It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the hegemon to restore an order it is dismantling, create institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.
Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s priority. Diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. We have capital, talent, and a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable, reliable partner—in a world that is anything but—a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
Canada has something else: a recognition of what is happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
We are taking the sign out of the window. The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just. This is the task of the middle powers, who have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from a world of genuine cooperation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.
