A lone figure takes to the stage, a giant maple leaf flag rippling on a screen behind him as he gingerly approaches the microphone.
“I’m not a lumberjack, or a fur trader,” he tells the crowd. “I have a prime minister, not a president. I speak English and French, not American. And I pronounce it ‘about’ – not ‘a boot’.”
The crowd, indifferent at first, grows increasingly enthusiastic as the man works his way through a catalogue of Canadian stereotypes, passing from diffidence to defiance before the climactic cry: “Canada is the second largest landmass! The first nation of hockey! And the best part of North America! My name is Joe! And I am Canadian!”
In response, Canadians have taken to acts of patriotism, small and large: one pilot flew his small plane in the shape of a maple leaf; sports fans have booed US teams; hats insisting “Canada is not for sale” have gone viral; consumers have pledged to buy only Canadian-made products – a pledge skewered in a viral sketch in which one shopper berates another for buying American ketchup.
If one is on the table, both are on the table? That’s a lazy oversimplification. The “playbook” you’re referencing isn’t some universal cheat sheet—it’s a patchwork of tactics tailored to specific circumstances. Treating armed annexation and economic manipulation as interchangeable tools is reductive. They serve different purposes, with vastly different consequences.
You’re conflating methods with outcomes. Annexation is overt, designed to dominate visibly. Economic dependency is covert, engineered to erode sovereignty from within. The latter is far more insidious because it doesn’t provoke the same resistance. Stop pretending they’re two sides of the same coin—they’re not even in the same currency.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
So your rebuttal to a nuanced argument is to toss out an insult and a link? Brilliant. Truly, the pinnacle of intellectual engagement. Did you even read the article you linked, or are you just hoping it does your thinking for you?
Economic instability is a factor, not a blueprint. Historical parallels require context, not cherry-picked fragments slapped onto unrelated situations. If you’re going to invoke history, at least try to grasp its complexity instead of wielding it like a blunt instrument.
Maybe next time, bring an actual argument instead of relying on lazy deflection and name-calling. It’s embarrassing for both of us.
Your “nuanced” agreement dismisses out of hand the utility of soft power leading into hard power. I’m not interested in having a conversation with a lazy or disingenuous actor, I posted the link for other readers not you.